J.V. Stalin on the Normandy Landings

10419634_543388665772223_6231938407797337184_n

10371924_10152125492892826_1786094577727804868_n

In answer to a Pravda correspondent, who asked how he evaluated the landing of Allied forces in northern France, Marshal Stalin gave the following reply:

IN summing up the seven days’ fighting by the Allied liberation forces in the invasion of northern France, it may be said without hesitation that the large-scale forcing of the Channel and the mass landing of Allied forces in the north of France have been completely successful. This is undoubtedly a brilliant success for our Allies.

One cannot but acknowledge that the history of war knows no other similar undertaking as regards breadth of design, vastness of scale and high skill of execution.

As is known, the “invincible” Napoleon, in his time, disgracefully failed in his plan of forcing the Channel and capturing the British Isles. The hysterical Hitler, who for two years boasted that he would effect the forcing of the Channel, did not even venture to make an attempt to carry out his threat. Only the British and American troops succeeded in carrying out with credit the vast plan of forcing the Channel and effecting the mass landing of troops.

History will record this deed as an achievement of the highest order.

June 13, 1944

 - J.V. Stalin, “On the Allied Landing in Northern France”

Late Night Marxism – Current Task of Communists

Single Shot Espresso: Ukraine Supplemental – Interview with Dmitry Kolesnik

Court Proceedings of the Moscow Trials

Please download and distribute freely.

Late Night Marxism – Episode 1 – January 2014

Introducing my new podcast “Late Night Marxism with Espresso Stalinist.” Hope you enjoy it!

 - E.S.

Alliance (Marxist-Leninist): Globalisation; Do Lenin’s Criteria of Imperialism still Hold?

globalization

THE NATIONAL QUESTION IN THE ERA OF GLOBALISATION.

Submission to Third Conference of International Struggle Marxist-Leninist. October 1999; Paris.

Goal Of This Article

We intend to discuss the most important features of imperialism as defined by Lenin; to ask whether the essential features of capital are so changed by recent events that we must revise the importance of the National Question and the general call of Communists to support the national movement:

“Fully and completely up to the point of secession the rights of self-determination.”

What this meant for Marxist-Leninists in relation to colonial and dependent countries, was explained by Lenin and Stalin:

“The Communist International must enter into temporary alliance with bourgeois democracy in colonial and backward countries.”

V.I.Lenin: Preliminary Draft of Theses on the national and Colonial Countries, 2nd Congress CI, in “Selected Works”, Volume 10, London, 1946; p.237.

“The task of the communist elements in the colonial type countries is to link up with the revolutionary elements of the bourgeoisie.. against the bloc of imperialism and the compromising elements of ‘their own’ bourgeoisie, in order.. to wage a genuinely revolutionary struggle for liberation from imperialism”.

J.V.Stalin :”The Results of the Work At the 14th Congress of the RCP(B), in “Works” Volume 7, Moscow, 1954, p.108-9.

What Is Globalisation? Definitions and Our Analytic Task

An acceptable working definition of “Globalisation” is needed for this analysis. It should be one that assumes the normal current position about “globalisation”, and makes the link between the “eclipse” of nations and “globalisation” explicit. The left leaning Hugo Radice (we assume him to be a social democrat) offers this:

“A process through which an increasing proportion of economic, social and cultural transactions take place directly or indirectly between parties in different countries; the term is then synonymous with “internationalisation”. This sort of definition used for example by Hist & Thompson (1996) presupposes an ‘original condition’, a starting point for the process in which the world is made up of distinct and self-sufficient economies, each under the jurisdiction of an independent national-state. It leads to the hypothesis that if globalisation proceeds ‘far enough’ it must lead to the replacement of an ‘inter-national’ world economy by a single integrated global economy; and this the globalisation process confronts threatens or undermines the nation-state”.

Radice, Hugo: “Taking Globalisation Seriously”; In “Socialist Register 1999: “Global capitalism versus democracy”; editors: Panitch Leo & Leys Colin. 1999; London; p.3.

Of course, as Radice points out, “international transactions” have taken place well before the advent of industrial capitalism. After all international trade is at least as old as the Phoenicians. The term “globalisation” is meant to imply a wider and deeper phenomena.

If that is so, what are the claims for a qualitatively new situation in the world economy, based upon?

It seems to be agreed by ideologists of the business and capitalist houses as well as the social democrat “left-leaning” like Radice, that a key element is an “inter-penetration” of business interests around the world. Thus, John H. Dunning is a fervent supporter of what he and others term the new era of “Alliance Capitalism” in today’s world economy. He adopts the definition of Antony McGrew from the work “Globalization & the Nation State”; 1992:

“Globalization refers to the multiplicity of linkages and interconnections between the states and societies which make up the present world system. It describes the process by which events, decisions and activities in one part of the world come to have significant consequences for individuals and communities in quite distant parts of the globe. Globalization has two distinct phenomena: scope (or stretching) and intensity (or deepening). On the one hand it defines a set of processes which embrace most of the globe or which operate world-wide; the concept therefore has a spatial connotation On the other hand it also implies an intensification of the levels of interaction interconnectedness, or interdependence between the states and societies which constitute the world community. Accordingly alongside the stretching goes a deepening of global processes.”

Cited by John H. Dunning in: ” Alliance Capitalism & Global Business”; London; 1997; p.33.

Dunning then makes the general definition operational and explicit in relation to the needs of big business:

“In short then, the economic globalization is a process towards the widening of the extent and form of cross-border transactions and of the deepening of the economic interdependence between the actions of globalizing entities – be they private or public institutions or governments – located in one country and those of related or independent entities located in other countries. The shallowest form of globalization is where and economic entity in one country engages in arm’s length trade in a single product with another economic entity in one other country. The deepest form of globalization is where an economic entity transacts with a large number of other economic entities throughout the world; where it does so across a network of value-added (i.e. profit added -Ed) chains; where these exchanges are highly coordinated to serve the world-wide interests of the globalizing entity; and where they consist of a myriad of different forms of transactions.. Thus a typical global firm will own or control subsidiaries and engage in a value added business alliance and networks in each continent and in each major country. It will source its inputs of labour, capital raw materials and intermediate products from wherever it is best o do so; it will engage in financial transactions independent of time and space; and it will sell its goods and services in each of the main markets of the world.”

Dunning; Ibid; p. 34.

Whether any of this is “new”, is assessed below. But, for now, the link for these ideologists with the role of the nation state is explored. What do these definitions mean for the individual nation-state? For the proponents of “globalization”, to enhance “value-adding” activity, all countries must be “fully open” to the forces of international globalization:

“Similarly a country which is fully open to the forces of globalisation is likely to be geographically diversified in its financial, trading, and investment relationships, and the value added associated with these relationships should constitute a significant part of its Gross National Product (GNP).”

Dunning; Ibid; p. 34.

Well what does this mean?

There is little doubt that at the simplest level it is a demand for free entry of goods and services and capital across all borders. Indeed an explicit anti-protectionism call. But beyond this, is intended a further dimension – the actual erosion of independent nations. As always, to assuage the fears of the “overly-anxious” capital calls upon trusted ideologues to clear the way and provide their “rationale”. The ex-Communist Eric J Hobsbawm, is given accolades by the bourgeoisie for his historical analyses. He presents the viewpoint of the bourgeoisie on the matter of “nationalism in the 20th Century”:

“In spite of its evident prominence, nationalism is historically less important (today). It is no longer as it were, a global political programme, as it may be said to have been in the nineteenth and earlier twentieth centuries. It is at most a complicating factor, or a catalyst for other developments. It is not implausible to present the history of the Eurocentric nineteenth century world as that of “nation-building”, as Walter Baghot did Is anyone likely to write the world history of the late twentieth and twentieth-first century in such terms? It is most unlikely. On the contrary, it will inevitably have to be written as the history of a world which can no longer be contained within the limits of “nations” and nation-states” as these used to be defined, either politically, or economically, or culturally, or even linguistically. It will be largely supranational and infra national, but even infra-nationality , whether it dresses itself up in the costume of some mini-nationalism, will reflect the decline of the old nation-state an operation entity. It will see “nation-sates” and “nations” or ethnic/linguistic groups primarily retreating before, resisting, adapting to, being absorbed or dislocated by the new supranational restructuring of the globe. Nations and nationalism will be present in this history but in subordinate and often rather minor roles. This does not mean that national history and culture will not bulk large-perhaps larger than before-in the educational systems and the cultural life of particular countries, especially the smaller ones, or that they may not flourish within a much broader supranational framework, as, say, Catalan culture today flourishes, but on the tacit assumption that it is Catalans who will communicate with the rest of the world through Spanish and English, since few non-residents in Catalonia will be able to communicate in the local language.”

Hobsbawm EJ: “Nations & Nationalism Since 1780. Programme, Myth & Reality”; Cambridge; Revised second edition; 1997; p.190-191.

Hobsbawm has filled the need of capital for a progressive patina-veneer to cover Capital’s worst aims with a “rationale”. This matches well the view of the more openly pro-bourgeois-capitalist ideologues like Lester C. Thurow, the former Dean of MIT Sloan School of Management. Thurow has no bones about concurring with the sense of Hobsbawm:

“Ethnic separatism (i.e. National separation in the sense in which Thurow is using the term – Ed) is a common phenomenon in periods of economic uncertainty periods when national borders are moving are much more common than periods when they are frozen into place. Since the Berlin Wall has come down, twenty new countries have been created and two countries East and West Germany have become one country Once borders begin to move anywhere in the world it legitimates the idea that they can move elsewhere. Nations hold together because of outside challenges or powerful inside ideologies. Communism was such a powerful inside ideology. It persuaded ethnic groups to live together (if not to like at least to tolerate each other) who had never lived together peacefully before. Communism was the powerful outside challenger that held ethnic forces in check elsewhere Ethnic divisions (i.e. national divisions) are not the twenty-first’s century’s wars of religions. The nation-state is a nineteenth or twentieth century phenomenon and in most cases it is difficult to devise common principles explaining why today’s nations and not some other grouping of nations exist. What is occurring is not religious wars but the phenomenon of ethnic splintering or of religious splintering where the ethnic or religious fault liens are so minor that outsiders often cannot see them even after they are told they exist. Blood and belonging are in the mind, not on the ground. The issue is not “who is us” but an “us” who often exists when no one else can see why. . Where homogeneous ethnic groups exist in different parts of the same country, large states are breaking up or threatening to break up- as in Canada and India. Challenges to existing borders have succeeded, are succeeding and will succeed. Bosnia and Yugoslavia are the wave of the future. They have echoed already in Czechoslovakia, Chechnya, Armenia-Azerbaijan and Georgia. If neither a powerful inside ideology nor a powerful outside threat exists, nations break into warring ethnic, racial or class groups. Why not break up into tribal ethnic groups and fight it out? Such sentiments are legitimated by today’s world economy. Everybody now understands that one does not have to be a big economy with a big internal market to succeed. City-states like Hong Kong or Singapore can succeed. It used to be that everyone thought that breaking up a country into smaller pieces meant a lower standard of living; today everyone knows that isn’t true. As a result one can go it alone and does not have to cooperate with other ethnic groups to have a high standard of living. With this knowledge goes one of the previously existing impediments to ethnic feuding.”

Thurow LC: “The Future of Capitalism. How Today’s Economic Forces Shape Tomorrow’s World.”; New York; 1996; pp –241.

In agreement that there has been a diminishment of nation-states, are key progressive forces actively fighting back against the impacts of global capital. For example, in colourful and vivid language, “Sub-Commandante Marcos” echoes the overall analysis. Although Marcos wrongly identifies the “Cold War” as the “Third World War”, and also wrongly identifies the Castro and Khruschev regimes (among others) as socialist – Nonetheless his perspective is that of a militant progressive fighter for his working peoples, in this case in Chiapas. Marcos clearly identifies the main enemy as “globalisation” – a process of active re-division of the world where:

” As a world system, neo-liberalism is a new war for the conquest of territory a new world war – the fourth. Like all major conflicts, this war is forcing national states to redefine their identity. The world order seems to have reverted to the earlier epochs of the conquests of America, Africa and Oceania . . . .Vast territories, wealth and, above all, a huge and available workforce lie waiting for the world’s new master . . the fourth world war is being conducted between major financial centres in theatres of war that are global in scale and with a level of intensity that is fierce and constant. . . One of its first victims has been the national market. . . . One of the fundamental bases of the power of the modern capitalist state, the national market, is wiped out by the heavy artillery of the global finance economy. The new international capitalism renders national capitalism obsolete and effectively starves their public powers into extinction. The blow has been so brutal that sovereign states have lost the strength to defend their citizens’ interests. . . . Are megalopolises replacing nations? No, or rather not merely that. They are assigning them new functions, new limits and new perspectives. Entire countries are becoming departments of the neoliberal mega-enterprise. Neoliberalism thus produces, on the one hand, destruction and depopulation, and, on the other, the reconstruction and reorganisation of regions and nations.”

“Why We Are Fighting-The fourth world war has begun” By Sub-Commandant Marcos; Zapatista National Liberation Army (ZNLA).” September 1997; In Le Monde Diplomatique; Also at: web site:
http://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/en/1997/09/?c=marcos

Marcos sees during all, this an increased polarisation of the world between ultra-rich and poor. Of course he is right. The raw reality and figures behind today’s world human misery, are frankly very difficult to fully comprehend:

“The earth has five billion human inhabitants: of these, only 500 million live comfortably; the remaining 4.5 billion endure lives of poverty. The rich make up for their numerical minority by their ownership of billions of dollars. The total wealth owned by the 358 richest people in the world, the dollar billionaires, is greater than the annual income of almost half the world’s poorest inhabitants, in other words about 2.6 billion people. . . . . In the 1960s and 1970s, the number of poor people in the world (defined by the World Bank as having an income of less than one dollar per day) rose to some 200 million. By the start of the 1990s, their numbers stood at two billion. . . . The world’s economically active population (EAP) went from 1.38 billion in 1960 to 2.37 billion in 1990. A large increase in the number of human beings capable of working and generating wealth. But the new world order arranges this workforce within specific geographical and productive areas, and reassigns their functions (or non-functions, in the case of unemployed and precarious workers) within the plan of world globalisation. The world’s economically active population by sector (EAPS) has undergone radical changes during the past 20 years. Agriculture and fishing fell from 22 % in 1970 to 12 % in 1990; manufacture from 25 % to 22 %; but the tertiary sector (commercial, transport, banking and services) has risen from 42 % to 56 %. In developing countries, the tertiary sector has grown from 40 % in 1970 to 57 % in 1990, while agriculture and fishing have fallen from 30 % to 15 % (2). This means that increasing numbers of workers are channelled into the kind of activities necessary for increasing productivity or speeding up the creation of commodities. The neoliberal system thus functions as a kind of mega-boss for whom the world market is viewed as a single, unified enterprise, to be managed by “modernising” criteria. But neoliberalism’s “modernity” seems closer to the bestial birth of capitalism as a world system than to utopian “rationality”, because this “modern” capitalist production continues to rely on child labour. Out of 1.15 billion children in the world, at least 100 million live on the streets and 200 million work – and according to forecasts this figure will rise to 400 million by the year 2000. In Asia alone, 146 million children work in manufacturing. And in the North too, hundreds of thousands of children have to work in order to supplement family incomes, or merely to survive. There are also many children employed in the “pleasure industries”: according to the United Nations, every year a million children are driven into the sex trade. The unemployment and precarious labour of millions of workers throughout the world is a reality which does not look set to disappear. . . . In the countries of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), unemployment went from 3.8 % in 1966 to 6.3 % in 1990; in Europe it went from 2.2 % to 6.4 %. The globalised market is destroying small and medium- sized companies. With the disappearance of local and regional markets, small and medium producers have no protection and are unable to compete with the giant transnationals. Millions of workers thus find themselves unemployed. One of the absurdities of neoliberalism is that far from creating jobs, the growth of production actually destroys them. The UN speaks of “growth without jobs”. But the nightmare does not end there. Workers are also being forced to accept precarious conditions. Less job security, longer working hours and lower wages: these are the consequences of globalisation in general and the explosion in the service sector in particular. . . . The number of those coming within the ambit of the United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) has grown disproportionately from 2 million in 1975 to more than 27 million in 1995.”

“Why We Are Fighting-The fourth world war has begun” By Sub-Commandant Marcos; Zapatista National Liberation Army (ZNLA).” September 1997; In Le Monde Diplomatique; Also at: http://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/en/1997/09/?c=marcos

Summary: Globalization entails one single world market; enormous inter-penetration of capital; minimization of national-border interference’s with trade and commerce; fostering of an indifference to national differences.; at enormous and incalculable costs to the world’s working peoples.

2. Our Current Analytic Task As Marxist-Leninists

When Marxist-Leninists raise the matter of “Nationalism Today, in the era of Globalisation” – we mean the relevance of the Marxist-Leninist theory of the colonial question, and the relations between the imperialists themselves and the national liberation struggle.

Naturally the views of Dunning, Hobsbawm, Thurow upon the National Question today, stand opposed to the views of Lenin and Stalin, as stated long ago in build-up to the world of the socialist revolution in Russia that they shepherded into being. But, perhaps there have been so many changes in the world that a qualitative change has taken place to render the views of Lenin and Stalin on the importance of the National Question as being immaterial?

After all times change, and dialectical materialists recognise reality. Moreover if revolutionary socialists adopt the strategy and tactics that will further the socialist revolution and not retard it, these must be consistent with reality.

All who call themselves Marxist-Leninist accept the role of Stalin as the defender of Lenin’s work. In this context, Stalin pointed out in the last work he wrote in 1951 – “The Economic Problems of the USSR” – that the economic positions of capitalism are constantly changing. He explicitly therefore asks whether adjustments to Lenin’s and analyses are needed:

“a) Can it be affirmed that the thesis expounded by Stalin before the Second World War regarding the relative stability of markets in the period of the general crisis of capitalism is still valid?
b) Can it be affirmed that the thesis expounded by Lenin in the spring of 1916 – namely that in spite of the decay of capitalism, “on the whole, capitalism is growing far more rapidly than before” – still valid.”
I think that it cannot. In view of the new conditions to which the Second World War has given rise, both these must be regarded as having lost their validity.”

Stalin J.V: “The Economic Problems of the USSR”; Foreign Languages Press Peking; p.32

Stalin agrees that there must be a change of the assessment of capitalism. But he is talking only in terms of the relative strength of capitalism, and not about its fundamental attributes. Stalin here recognised that new conditions had placed a brake upon un-fettered capitalist development. Naturally Stalin explicitly placed this brake, in the context of the successful defense of socialism in the USSR against Hitlerite and capitalist attacks, the victory towards the peoples Democracies world wide; and the denial of markets to the world capitalists, by virtue of the link between the Peoples Democracies and the USSR:

“Disintegration of the Single World Market & Deepening of the Crisis of the World Capitalist System: “The disintegration of the single all-embracing world markets must be regarded as the most important economic sequel of the Second World War and of its economic consequences. It has had the effect of further deepening the general crisis of the world capitalist system.”;

Stalin; Ibid; p. 30.

“China and other, European , people’s democracies broke away from the capitalist system and, together with the Soviet Union, formed a united and powerful socialist camp confronting the camp of capitalism. The economic consequence of the existence of two opposite camps was that the single all-embracing world market disintegrated, so that we now have two parallel markets confronting one another.. It should be observed that the USA & Great Britain and France, themselves contributed – without themselves desiring it of course – to the formation & consolidation of the new parallel world market. They imposed an economic blockade on the USSR, China, & the European people’s democracies, which did not join the “Marshall Plan” system thinking thereby to strangle them.”;

Stalin; p. 30-31 Ibid;

If that brake had been placed upon capitalism by the socialist system of the USSR and the development towards People’s democracy, it is inevitably true that the destruction of socialism in the USSR in 1953 and the revisionist led distortions inside the People’s democracies would lead to a resurgence of the capitalist system.

Returning to Stalin’s lifetime, Stalin pointed out this brake on capitalist development by 1951, meant that markets would decrease and competition between capitalism would grow:

“But it follows from this that the sphere of exploitation of the world’s resources by the major capitalist countries (USA, Britain, France) will not expand but contract; that their opportunities for sale in the world market will not expand, but contract; that their opportunities for sale in the world market will deteriorate and that their industries will be operating more and more below capacity. That is in fact, what is meant by the deepening of the general crisis of the world capitalist system in connection with the disintegration of the world market”.

Stalin; Ibid; p.31.

Of course this means that capitalist wars remain inevitable.

“Part 6: Inevitability of Wars between Capitalist Countries”; Some comrades think that owing to the development of new international conditions since the Second World War, wars between capitalist countries have ceased to be inevitable. These comrades are mistaken Outwardly everything would seem to be going well”; the USA has put Western Europe, Japan, and other capitalist countries on rations; Germany (Western), Britain, France, Italy & Japan have fallen into the clutches of the USA and are meekly obeying its commands. But it would be mistaken to think that things can continue to “go well” for ” all eternity”, that these countries will tolerate the domination and oppression of the United States endlessly, that they will not endeavor to tear loose from American bondage and take the part of independent development.”

Stalin; Ibid; p.33.

While no one in their right minds would dispute that capitalist wars are inevitable nowadays, following the USA-led NATO attack upon the Balkans, there are still some who claim that significant changes have occurred to capitalism that demand a change in our overall strategy and tactics. It is our task today to begin to prepare an answer to this.

There have indeed been some significant changes since Stalin wrote the Economic Problems. We itemize some of those most important in our view:

The most important political change has been the fall of all Socialist states and their reversion to a single world market driven by profit. This has temporarily prolonged the final phases of international capitalism and imperialism both by providing a new market; but more importantly by temporarily “discrediting” Marxism-Leninism. The removal of the brake of the socialist countries, has meant a temporary revival and growth of capitalism. This has been analysed before by Bland (See “Restoration of Capitalism In the USSR”; Wembley 1984; see also web site of Alliance for the whole book at: GO TO SUBJECT INDEX).

The advent of new technology, exemplified by the computer. These new technologies have transformed both the role of “financial capital” and that of “industrial capital”. In financial capital their impact has been to dramatically expand the role of money and what is considered as “money”. In industrial capital they have tremendously accelerated the rate of exploitation of workers; accelerated the flooding of markets with goods chasing buyers; by virtue of the cost of computer aided systems dramatically enhanced the rate of the fall of profit predicted by Marx. (these events have all been analysed in some detail by Alliance in :”Number 3: Protectionism, Inflation & Free Trade. Economics of the 20th Century”; Toronto 1993; Also on the web site of Alliance: See Inflation in subject index at: GO TO SUBJECT INDEX).

The transformation of overt naked colonialism into disguised neo-colonialism. (A neo-colony ie. a former colony which has become nominally “independent” but which continues to have its economic system largely controlled for the benefit of the ruling class of the same dominating Great Power which formerly ruled it directly). This has led to at least three specific changes. Firstly is the dispersal of industrial localization to the periphery – with a consequent rise in unemployment in the former Western industrialized countries and the dramatic fall in their industrialized bases in terms of plants actually operating on their “home” territory. Secondly it has resulted in the evolution of some industrial competitors usually termed Newly Industrialised Countries (NIC). These weak though they might be, and though they might initially start under the control of foreign imperialism, they end up offering some potential or actual competition to the giants of the so-called Triad (The USA, the European powers of the European Economic Community EEC); and Japan. In combination with (ii) above, the inevitable consequence has been to accelerate the general crisis of over-production. Thirdly, in association with (ii) above, there has been a progressive NARROWING of the space (or as Lenin termed it “There is no Chinese wall between the first and the second stage of the revolutions”) between the first democratic stage of the colonial revolution and the second socialist stage. This has NOT eliminated the need for the first stage in many neo-colonial countries, but it has made the allies of the working class and the peasantry – the national bourgeois even more weak-willed and vacillating than before. (Alliance has discussed these issues in some detail, before in issue 29 & 5 in particular. For issue 5 entitled: The Role Of The Bourgeoisie In Colonial Type Countries – What Is The Class Character Of The Indian State ?” See:

http://www.lueneburg.net/privatseiten/Eggers_Wolfgang/eng/alliance5.htm
For Issue 28 entitled : Upon The Polemic Between Proletarian Path & Revolutionary Democracy – Concerning The Stage Of The Indian Revolution. See:

http://www.lueneburg.net/privatseiten/Eggers_Wolfgang/eng/alliance28.htm

See also Alliance on Lenin and Stalin’s views on the Chinese revolution” – on the web at:(See under China at GO TO SUBJECT INDEX)

But we will argue that none of these has fundamentally changed either the nature of capitalism or the general picture of world imperialism and its need to dominate smaller economies of independent nations.

Summary: In 1951 Stalin had identified that the changes associated with socialist development in the USSR and its leadership of the People’s “Democracies” had retarded the progress of capitalism. It is natural that the demise of socialism has led to its changes on the function of capital. Other major political changes over this period include the development of the NIC’s and the transformation of naked colonialism into disguised neo-colonialism. Finally some major technological advances related to the computer industry has taken place.

3. Has Capitalism Fundamentally Changed Up to 1951?

Granted these dramatic changes have taken place, it is our purpose in assessing the impact of these changes. But in trying to assess these changes and their impact upon our revolutionary strategy, it might help to ask:

“What is the basic law of capital?” – and then to ask: “Whether the basic law of capitalism has changed?”

Stalin asked this question in 1951. Of course Stalin’s main intent was to compare and contrast the economic laws under socialism in the USSR, with those of capitalism. (Other intents included the fighting of internal revisionism in the USSR as led by Khruschev and Vosnosenksy. The Communist League (UK) has dealt with these matters in separate publications: (Reprinted by Alliance as Issue 17: “On Revisionist Economics”; Toronto 1995; See also ‘Varga & Vosnosensky at GO TO SUBJECT INDEX web site Alliance).

But there is good reason for us now, to re-consider Stalin’s views on the essential laws of capitalism with respect to the current views on capitalism in the era of “globalisation”. After all Stalin reasoned that it was important to explain capitalism’s functioning. This is no less true today. As Stalin pointed out:

“The importance of the basic economic law of capitalism consists among other things, in the circumstance that since it determines all the major phenomena in the development of the capitalist mode of production, its booms and crises, its victories and defeats, its merits and demerits, – the whole process of its contradictory development – it enables us to understand & explain them”;

Stalin Ibid: “Economic Problems Of Socialism In the USSR”; “Part 7: The Basic Economic Laws of modern Capitalism & Socialism”; Ibid; p. 40.

Before re-examining Stalin’s views, it should be remind ourselves that indeed Stalin made the observation that Lenin’s and Stalin’s estimations of the stage of capitalism’s expansion in 1915 and 1930, needed to be revised in 1951 (See above). But at no time did he challenge the characterization of capitalism as being “monopoly capitalism”. To the contrary Stalin constantly in his writing of “Economic Problems Of Socialism In The USSR”, identifies “modern capitalism” with “Monopoly capitalism”. In the following quotations we have bolded these references.

Thus Stalin at no stage gives any indication of appraising Lenin’s estimation of “monopoly” capitalism as being fundamentally in need of change.

So what Laws of Capitalism did Stalin evaluate for their capacity to stand as the “basic economic law of capitalism

First he assessed whether the root economic law of capitalism was the Law of Value, and he answered it was not, nor was the “law of competition and “the law of uneven development”:

“Is the Law of Value the basic economic law of capitalism? No the law of value is primarily a law of commodity production. It existed before capitalism, and like commodity production will continue to exist after the overthrow of capitalism Not only does it not determine the essence of capitalist production and the principles of capitalist profit it does not even pose these problems. Therefore it cannot be the basic economic law of modern capitalism. For the same reasons, the law of competition and anarchy of production or the law of uneven development in the various countries cannot be the basic economic law of capitalism either.”

Stalin Ibid: “Economic Problems Of Socialism In the USSR”; “Part 7: The Basic Economic Laws of modern Capitalism & Socialism”; Ibid; p. 37-38.

Stalin then asked whether the basic law was the obtaining of the “Average rate of profit?” He answered that it was not:

“It is said that the law of the average rate of profit is the basic economic law of modern capitalism. That is not true, Modern capitalism, monopoly capitalism cannot content itself with the average profit, which moreover has a tendency to decline, in view of the increasing organic composition of capital. It is not the average profit but the maximum profit that modern monopoly capitalism demands, which it needs for more or less regular extended reproduction.”

Stalin Ibid: “Economic Problems Of Socialism In the USSR”; “Part 7: The Basic Economic Laws of modern Capitalism & Socialism”; Ibid; p. 37-38.

Stalin did identify the Law of Surplus Value as the most “appropriate to the concept of a basic economic law of capitalism”. But he pointed out that this was “too general a law and does not cover the problem of the highest rate of profit the securing of which is a condition for the development of monopoly capitalism.” :

“Most appropriate to the concept of a basic economic law of capitalism is the law of surplus value, the law of the origin and growth of capitalist profit. It really does determine the basic features of capitalist production. But the law of surplus value is too general a law; it does not cover the problem of the highest rate of profit; the securing of which is a condition for the development of monopoly capitalism. In order to fill this hiatus, the law of surplus value must be made more concrete and developed further in adaptation to the conditions of monopoly capitalism, at the same time bearing in mind that monopoly capitalism demands not any sort of profit but precisely the maximum profit. That will be the basic law of modern capitalism.”

Stalin Ibid: “Economic Problems Of Socialism In the USSR”; “Part 7: The Basic Economic Laws of modern Capitalism & Socialism”; Ibid; p. 38-39.

So what according to Stalin IS the “Basic economic law of modern capitalism”? He replies:

“The main features and requirements of the basic economic law of modern capitalism might be formulated roughly in this way: the securing of the maximum capitalist profit through the exploitation, ruin, and impoverishment of the majority of the population of the given country, through the enslavement and systematic robbery of the peoples of other countries, especially backward countries , and lastly through wears and militiarization of the national economy which are utilized for the obtaining of higher profits.”

Stalin Ibid: “Economic Problems Of Socialism In the USSR”; “Part 7: The Basic Economic Laws of modern Capitalism & Socialism”; Ibid; p.39.

Alliance feels that this operating definition FULLY stands as the current operating definition of the basic economic law of capitalism and is un-necessary to modify. We argue, that if this is so, then the rest of Stalin’s understanding of the connection between the stage of “modern monopoly” capitalism and the National Question remains – basically intact.

We should note the intimate connection of the National Question, the Colonial Question and the matter of “modern monopoly capitalism” – linked into one seminal analysis by Lenin, in “Imperialism the Highest Stage of Capitalism”; written in 1916.

In this regard, Stalin gives us no indication in 1951 that there is any need to break the chain of reasoning between the stage of “modern monopoly capitalism”, the chase for markets and the “enslavement and plunder of colonies and backward countries”:

“It is said that the average profit might nevertheless be regarded as quite sufficient for capitalist development under modern conditions. That is not true. The average profit is the lowest point of profitableness, below which capital production becomes impossible. That is not true. The average profit is the lowest point of profitableness, below which capitalist production becomes impossible. But it would be absurd to think that in seizing colonies, subjugating peoples and engineering wars, the magnates of modern monopoly capitalism are striving to secure only the average profit. No, it is not the average profit, nor yet super-profits- which as a rule represents only a slight addition to the average profit- but precisely the maximum profit that is the motor of monopoly capitalism precisely the necessity of securing the maximum profits that drives monopoly capitalism to such risky undertakings as the enslavement and systematic plunder of colonies and other backward countries, the conversion of a number of independent countries into dependent countries, the organization of new wars – which to the magnates of modern capitalism is the “business” best adapted to the extraction of the maximum profit – and lastly, attempts to win world economic supremacy.”

Stalin Ibid: “Economic Problems Of Socialism In the USSR”; Ibid; p. 39.

In the light of all the general hype about the “New Age of Computers” etc; we should give some specific considerations to the matter of new technologies. There is no doubt about the important and revolutionary impact of computing science upon daily life and capitalist production. But has the advent of new technology OF ITSELF changed the situation vis-à-vis capital’s functioning? Stalin would argue that even dramatic technological changes are subordinate to the operation of the fundamental basic economic law of capital: The securing of the highest profit levels:

“Capitalism is in favour of new techniques when they promise it the highest profit. Capital is against new techniques and for resort to hand techniques when the new techniques do not promise the highest profit.”

Stalin Ibid: “Economic Problems Of Socialism In the USSR”; “Part 7: The Basic Economic Laws of modern Capitalism & Socialism”; Ibid.; p. 40.

We will argue below that the advent of computerisation has simply exacerbated the impact of Lenin’s analysis, and that it has not fundamentally changed the relationship between the dependent countries and the large metropolitan blocks.

All this must lead us to considering the economic forces described by Lenin in “Imperialism – The Highest Stage of Capitalism”, written in. Have there been such critical economic changes since Lenin described the features of the “highest stage of capitalism”, as being imperialism in his classic work, as to lead us to need to revise his thoughts?

Summary: Up to 1951, there was no essential change in the operation of “modern monopoly” capitalism, that operated out of the necessity to extract the highest possible rate of profit and which impelled it to predatory wars and enslavements of dependent countries. The essential basic economic law underlying its development, seems to Alliance NOT to have changed since 1951.

5. Lenin’s “Imperialism As the Highest Stage of Capitalism”.

Lenin defined imperialism as a very specific stage where the earlier stages of capitalism were being mutated into their opposite. By this he meant that a marked feature of capitalist development is “free competition” and individual enterprise. This was being turned into its opposite – cartelisation and monopoly:

“Imperialism emerged as the development and direct continuation of the fundamental attributes of capitalism in general. But capitalism only became capitalist imperialism at a definite and very high stage of its development, when certain of its fundamental attributes began to change into their opposites, when the features of the epoch of transition from capitalism to a higher social and economic system began to take shape and revealed themselves in all spheres. Economically, the main thing in this process is the displacement of capitalist free competition by capitalist monopoly. for Free competition is the basic feature of capitalism, and of commodity production generally; Monopoly is the exact opposite; but we have seen the latter being transformed into monopoly before our eyes, creating large-scale industry and eliminating small industry, replacing large-scale industry by still larger-scale industry, and carrying concentration of production and capital to the point where it has grown and is growing monopoly: cartels, syndicates and trusts, and merging with them, the capital of a dozen or so banks manipulating thousands of millions. At the same time monopoly which has grown out of free competition, do not eliminate the latter, but exist over it and alongside of it, and thorny gives rise to a number of very acute, intense antagonisms, friction and conflicts. Monopoly is the transition from capitalism to a higher stage. If it were necessary to give the briefest possible definition of imperialism we should have to say that imperialism is the monopoly stage of capitalism. Such a definition would include what is most important, for on the one hand finance capital is the bank capital of the a few very big monopolist banks, merged with the capitals of the monopolist associations of industrialists; and on the other hand the division of the world is transition from a colonial policy which ahs extended without hindrance to territories unseized by any capitalist power, to a colonial policy of monopolist division of the territory of the world, which has been completely divided up.”

V.I. Lenin: “Imperialism – The Highest Stage of Capitalism”; ” In Selected Works; Moscow; 1977; p.699-700.

In the same section, Lenin distills the key features of imperialism:

“We must give a definition of imperialism that will include the following five of its basic features:
1) The concentration of production and capital has developed to such a stage that it has created monopolies which play a decisive role in economic life;
2) The merging of bank capital with industrial capital and the creation on the basis of this “finance capital”, of a financial oligarchy;
(3) the export of capital as distinguished from the export of commodities acquires exceptional importance;
(4) the formation of international monopolist capitals associations which share the world among themselves, and
(5) The territorial division of the whole world among the biggest capitalist powers is completed.”

Lenin Ibid; p. 702.

We propose here to consider whether any of these “basic features” identified by Lenin, have changed to such a qualitative degree, that we would agree that “globalisation” is a distinctly new phase in capitalist development and mandates a different strategy and tactics for the proletariat and peasant working masses of the world.

The concentration of production and capital has developed to such a stage that it has created monopolies which play a decisive role in economic life;

Lenin pointed out that the vast scale of company mergers challenged the state.

This process has vastly accelerated. Even by 1951, Stalin was already commenting that this feature of modern monopoly capitalism was far more pervasive than it had been before. He proposed that the term “coalescence” was now superseded by the term “subjugation of the state machine to the monopolies”:

“(4) Coalescence of the monopolies with the state machine: The word “coalescence” is not appropriate. It superficially and descriptively notes the process of merging of the monopolies with the state, but it does not reveal the economic import of this process. The fact of the matter is that the merging process is not simply a process of coalescence, but the subjugation of the state machine to the monopolies. The word “coalescence” should therefore be discarded and replaced by the words “subjugation of the state machine to the monopolies”.

Stalin Ibid: “Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR”; “Part 8.Other Questions.”; Ibid; p. 43-44

But nowadays, the process is even more highly concentrated leading to vast giants of corporations.

“The pace of corporate change is impressive. Hardly a week goes by without the media announcing some new marriage between major companies, the creation of some new colossus, a mega-merger designed to create the super-giants of the future. Among the most spectacular, we have recently had the acquisition of the Chrysler auto company by Daimler-Benz (for a sum of $43 billion); the Citicorp bank by Travelers ($82.9 billion); the Ameritech telephone company by SBC Communications ($60 billion); the pharmaceuticals giant Ciba by Sandoz ($36.3 billion, creating Novartis); MCI Communications by WorldCom ($30 billion); the Bank of Tokyo by Mitsubishi Bank ($33.8 billion); the Société de Banque Suisse by the Union des Banques Suisses ($24.3 billion); and the recent merger decision between the two historical giants of the German steel industry, Thyssen and Krupp, which, according to their managements, will generate a combined turnover of $63 billion In 1997 the total for mergers and acquisitions was running at upwards of $1,600 billion. The sectors most susceptible to this monolith-mania have been banking, pharmaceuticals, media, telecommunications, food and agro-industry and the auto industry. . . . . . As a result of successive consolidations, some firms have now achieved gargantuan proportions. Their turnovers are sometimes higher than the GNP of some industrialised countries. For instance, General Motors’ turnover is higher that the GNP of Denmark; Exxon’s is bigger than that of Norway, and Toyota’s is bigger than that of Portugal (François Chesnais, La Mondialisation du capital, Syros, Paris, 1997.). The financial resources available to these companies often exceed the financial incomes of whole countries, including major industrialised countries. They are also greater than the foreign exchange reserves held by most major countries’ central banks (François Chesnais, La Mondialisation du capital, Syros, Paris, 1997). . . . . . ” In the run-up to the millennium, we are witnessing a strange spectacle: the growing power of planetary business giants, against which the traditional countervailing powers (governments, parties, trade unions etc.) seem increasingly impotent. The main phenomenon of our age, globalisation, is in no sense under the control of governments. Faced with these giant corporations, the state is losing more and more of its prerogatives. The question is, can we, as citizens, really turn a blind eye to this new-style global coup d’état?”

Le Monde Diplomatique; June 1998: “Leader: Giant corporations, dwarf states”; by Ignacio Ramonet

The same Le Monde editorialist notes that the types of mergers now taking place go beyond the previous seen, in another way: They include areas that until now were the sacrosanct purview of Government such as in the auto industry:

“The mergers are happening in areas that would once have been considered taboo. For instance, at one time most governments would have seen the auto industry, along with steel and telecommunications, as a sector of prime strategic importance. However, this has not been the case in Britain for the past twenty years and, since the purchase of Chrysler by Germany’s Daimler-Benz, it is no longer the case in the United States either. . . . .”

Le Monde Diplomatique; June 1998: “Leader: Giant corporations, dwarf states”; by Ignacio Ramonet

In this process nothing is “off-limits”, and the signal for all this was the advent of the de-nationalizing of key sectors of the British Industrial heights. This socially destructive process now is dignified and known by the name of “privatisation”, and was initiated by Thatcher:

“In a kind of push-pull effect, as the mergers lead to the creation of ever larger corporations, the advance of privatisation means that the state is reduced to the stature of a dwarf. Ever since Margaret Thatcher launched the first privatisations in the early 1980s, more or less everything has been up for sale. Most governments, from North to South, from right to left, have embarked on massive pruning operations in their state apparatuses. Between 1990 and 1997, at world level, governments have off-loaded onto a grateful private sector sections of their national heritage to the tune of $513 billion ($215 billion in the European Union alone). Privatised concerns are particularly valued by investors since they may have benefited from restructuring financed by the state and are also likely to have had their debts wiped out. They are very attractive propositions. Particularly the public amenities (such as electricity, gas, water, transportation, telecommunications and health), which promise a highly profitable, regular income which is free of risk and where prior investment made by governments is good for decades to come.”

Le Monde Diplomatique; June 1998: “Leader: Giant corporations, dwarf states”; by Ignacio Ramonet

What explains this current super fervor of mergers? Some of the same factors identified earlier play in, such as the vast amount of money and credit expansion:

“What explains this ferment of activity? Operating within a context of increasing globalisation, the major companies of the Triad (North America, the European Union and Japan) are making the most of economic deregulation in order to establish truly global presence for themselves. They are looking to become major players in the world’s leading countries and aiming to take significant shares in those countries’ markets. A combination of factors such as the fall in interest rates (which prompts a shift from bonds into shares), a large quantity of capital seeking a way out of the Asian stock markets, the massive financial capabilities of the large pension funds, and the improved profitability of companies in Europe and the United States, has created a certain headiness in the stock exchanges of the West, and this is what lies behind the merger frenzy.”

Le Monde Diplomatique; June 1998: “Leader: Giant corporations, dwarf states”; by Ignacio Ramonet

But more mundane factors are also involved such as competition, securing of research & development (R &D) gains of competitors, and job cutting:

“From the predators’ point of view, such mergers offer several advantages. Competition from other companies can be eliminated by buying them up because in most cases these mergers arise not out of a desire to diversify, but as an attempt by competitor companies to achieve quasi-monopoly positions in their respective sectors (2); they also provide an opportunity to catch up in R&D terms, by taking over firms that are technologically more advanced; and finally they open the way to mass sackings under the pretext of cutting costs (for example, in its first year the merger between UK firms Glaxo and Wellcome resulted in the elimination of 7,500 jobs – one tenth of the total workforce).”

Le Monde Diplomatique; June 1998: “Leader: Giant corporations, dwarf states”; by Ignacio Ramonet

In Summary: We do not feel that this part of Lenin’s definition of imperialist monopoly capital has changed.

2) The merging of bank capital with industrial capital and the creation on the basis of this “finance capital”, of a financial oligarchy.

Lenin identified that :

“Imperialism .. is marked by..the merging or coalescence of banking with industry..”

V.I.Lenin, ” Imperialism the highest stage of capitalism “

But Lenin emphasised that, despite merging of bank and industrial capital in imperialism, this stage brings about an increasing separation between industry and its main sources of financial investment, and an increasing dependence of the former upon the latter:

“Generally speaking, under capitalism.. money capital is separate from industrial or productive capital; the rentier living entirely on income obtained from money capital is separated from the entrepreneur.. Imperialism, or the rule of finance capital, is the highest stage of capitalism in which this separation reaches vast proportions. The supremacy of finance capitals over all other forms of capital means the rule of the rentier and of the financial oligarchy.”

V.I.Lenin, op cit; p. 53.

In the same work, Lenin drew attention to the:

“The extraordinary growth of .. the category of bondholders (rentiers).. who take no part in production, whose profession is idleness, The export of capital one of the essential bases of imperialism, still more completely isolates the rentiers from production and sets the seal of parasitism on the whole country that lives by the exploitation of the labour of several overseas countries and colonies.. The world has become divided into a handful of money-lending states on the one hand and a vast majority of debtor states on the other.. The rentier state is a state of decaying capitalism.”

V.I.Lenin, op cit.

But there have been several changes in the nature of the alliance between the wings of capital within one nation.

For an interim period the Banks were not the prime source of finance for capitalist industry. In Britain for example, banks (mainly merchant banks) own only:

“0.3%..of company shares.”

Cited in Combat, Communist League, London, Data from “Stock Exchange Official Year Book: 1984-85 ” London; 1985. p. 969.

Furthermore, banks in Britain provide only 6% of the external funding of industry in the form of loans and these have been traditionally short term loans to provide:

“Working (as opposed to investment) capital.. “

G.Ingham “Capitalism Divided”, Basingstoke, UK.1984. p.67-8.

Industry itself began to finance much of its own investments. The huge multi-nationals had such currency reserves that they eroded the power of the banks to some extent:

“The old economy is highly leveraged and deeply in debt. The emerging New Economy isn’t.. There has been enormous structural changes since the era not long ago, when the US corporate sector regularly incurred large financial deficits.. In the first quarter of 1992, Corporate America generated a financial surplus of $109.6 billion (US) – the largest such surplus in US history (Surplus is cash flow minus capital spending and working capital requirements)..Today’s huge surpluses stem from the fact that corporate cash flows in the New Economy – in industries like pharmaceutical, software and computers – exceed internal requirements to finance capital spending inventory and the like.. the shift to surplus is driving interest rates lower.. Gone are the days when the US sector was a net user of the personal saver’s savings.. The corporate sector is driving the US economy to a degree unthinkable in the old economy. Conventional wisdom that the economy is driven by consumer spending is no longer as true as it once was. “

Globe And Mail, Toronto, Business News. p.B26, Sep 22,1992.

These divisions between the wings of capital are recognised overtly by the business community. Thus when the U.S. Democrats were resistant to a monetary policy, preferring to have their own representative, an industrialist Mr. G.William Millar at the Federal Reserve Board “was seen by many within and outside the Federal Reserve System as being too closely tied to President Carter and insufficiently attuned to the needs of the financial sector, was replaced by Paul Volcker. As the Wall Street Journal later reported it:

“Wall Street shoved Volcker down Carter’s throat.”

G.Epstein, ‘Federal Reserve Behaviour and the limits of monetary policy in the current economic crisis. ‘ Contained in “The Imperilled Economy. Book One. ” New York. 1987. p. 250

In fact the relation between the profits of the financial capitalist class, and the industrial capitalist class are inversely related. This can be seen for the USA in the accompanying graph, on Graph 1.

GRAPH: PROFITS OF NON-FINANCIAL AND COMMERCIAL BANK CAPITAL USA 1973-1984 Inflation adjusted.

From: “Federal Reserve behaviour and the limits of monetary policy in the current economic crisis”.G.Epstein p.253. In: ” The Imperilled Economy ” New York. 1987.

We have discussed these matters before, in Alliance 3, referenced above. But as Lenin pointed out, “history moves in zig-zags”:

“History is moving in zigzags, and by round about waysit is un-dialectical, unscientific and theoretically wrong to regard the course of world history as smooth and always in a forward direction, without gigantic leaps back;”

V.I.Lenin Collected Works; Vol 22; pp 377-378 Albanian edition-cited in “Problems of Current World Development”; Institute to Marxist-Leninist Studies; CC of the PLA of Albania; Tirana 1979; p.71.

It should not be surprising therefore if there has been another change.

The relationship between Finance and industrial capital, did indeed go through “a divorce”, as first identified by Comrades of the Communist League. The Communist League and we have described this before in relation to the war between “monetarist” economists and their political representatives and the “Keynsian-laissez-faire” capitalism and their political and economic representatives.

However, the situation has again changed such that the enormous funds available from the explosion of the new forms of money and new computerized forms of “money trading” have fostered a new re-marriage between finance and commodity-industrial capitalism:

“Many in the Clinton Administration and in the U.S. Congress.. justify various schemes to enhance the power and profits of the financial industry. . . . The game has taken a radical turn in the new Congress as factions of the Senate Banking Committee and the Treasury Department have launched serious efforts which go beyond the melding of “financial services” to permit a full-scale marriage of banking and commerce — a total rollback of the Bank Holding Company Act’s proscription against banks and commercial corporations owning each other. .. breaching the wall of separation between banking corporations and commercial firms could bring about major changes in the economy — and enable corporate conglomerates to enhance their power through a new and powerful leverage of bank credit .. . .Undersecretary of the Treasury John (Jerry) Hawke, author of a draft plan being circulated within the administration, argues that financial reform cannot succeed without mixing banking and commerce. Hawke says that banks will be “handicapped” and “less competitive” unless the traditional prohibitions are lifted entirely. . . . … Senator Alfonse D’Amato, R-New York, chair of the Senate Banking Committee, has fired the opening shot in the campaign to allow common ownership, introducing a comprehensive package to tear down the existing wall between commerce and banking.. . . . . . the loudest and most forcible message has come from Paul Volcker, the former chair of the Federal Reserve Board and a long-time opponent of mixing banking and commerce. Volcker told a House Banking subcommittee in March that “modernization” was not “worth the risks and costs of embarking on a new experiment — an experiment foreign to our traditions and experience — of relaxing prohibitions on combinations of banking and commerce.”

Jonathan Brown: “The Monopoly Makers: A Dangerous Mix II The Case for Preserving the Separation Between Banking and Commerce”;. “The Multinational Monitor”; April, 1997 · Volume 18 · Number 4

In Summary: We do not feel that this part of Lenin’s definition of imperialist monopoly capital has changed.

3) The export of capital as distinguished from the export of commodities acquires exceptional importance;

In essence this has not changed in importance, But we feel that certain new elements should be considered

i) New Forms of Money and Credit

The advent of new technology from computerisation has meant the increase in rapid fluxes of “hot money” around the world in search of a profit. As Alliance 3 pointed out; the total amount of monies in the market place has rapidly increased. This led to the new markets of money trading. This in turn led to the further and new way of eroding the “national” policy decision-making capacity of any dependent nation. Thus we have seen the major crises initiated by single traders such as the rogue trader from Barings recently. The financial attacks on the currencies of many of the Asian countries show the depth of attack:

“Globalization is in crisis. That is the most profound meaning of the ongoing Asian financial meltdown. The Asian meltdown was caused in large part by South Korea, Thailand, the Philippines, Malaysia and Indonesia’s heavy reliance on short-term foreign loans. When it became apparent that private enterprises in those nations would not be able to meet their payment obligations, international currency markets panicked. Currency traders rushed to sell their won, baht, pesos, ruppiah or ringgit. As the traders converted their money back into dollars, the Asian currencies plummeted, making it impossible for the Asian nations to pay off their loans (which had to be repaid in dollars or other foreign currencies, and therefore appeared more expensive after the devaluation). For reasons that included corruption and insufficient financial regulation, domestic and foreign banks made imprudent loans to companies that were engaging in wasteful, unnecessary and speculative investments in areas like real estate, and, especially in South Korea, to corporations that were overinvesting in manufacturing for markets that were saturated. Most of these problems are rooted in globalization. The unregulated financial flows into the region reflected IMF and World Bank influence and more generally the Asian countries’ strategy to attract foreign capital. But reliance on foreign investment left these countries vulnerable to the sudden withdrawal of foreign monies. The overinvestment in factories is the logical consequence of globalizers’ entreaty that all nations produce for export and deemphasize the local market. Both overinvestment and real estate speculation reflect insufficient and inequitably distributed domestic demand that would encourage investment in production to meet local needs.”

Editorial:”The Multinational Monitor: “Lessons from the Asian Meltdown”; January/February 1998 · Volume 19 · Numbers 1 & 2

Lately this has become so potentially destablising that the more far seeing captislast have recongised the need to put some sort of currency controls back on the agenda. This includes those like George Soros whose fortunes to large part are built on these very predatory tactics that he now condemns. Says the Multinational Monitor:

“Among the counterproductive conditions imposed by the IMF and Rubin on the Asian countries are requirements that they open up their economies further to foreign investors. (These demands relate to foreign “direct investment” in factories, agriculture and service operations ranging from tourism to banks, not just “portfolio” investment in stocks, bonds and currency.) Rubin has specifically and successfully pressured South Korea to open up its financial sector. Translation: the very U.S. banks which contributed to South Korea’s crisis now stand to buy up lucrative sectors of the South Korean economy. Similar demands have successfully been made in other troubled Asian countries. Not only is the double subsidy to the Big Banks unjust, it helps perpetuate the very problem it is designed to remedy. When the IMF bails out the banks — in effect providing free insurance — it sends a message: “Don’t worry about the downside of your international loans. As long as enough banks get in too deep, we’ll rescue you at the end of the day.” That encourages more reckless bank lending, since the banks can earn high interest on high-risk loans without having to absorb losses. In this sense, the U.S./IMF bailout of Wall Street in the 1995 Mexican economic collapse paved the way for the current crisis.”

Editorial: “The Multinational Monitor: “Lessons from the Asian Meltdown”; January/February 1998 · Volume 19 · Numbers 1 & 2.

ii) The Transfer of Export Capacity of Industrial Goods

In fact the imperialist metropolitan country bourgeoisie have utilized the various national bourgeoisie of the developing countries, to foster the growth of certain types of industry in those countries. This ahs allowed them to off-load certain more ecologically damaging industries to the more distant areas of the world; and utilize the lower cost of labour power to accrue further profit. They have been assisted by “bad loans” made both by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and by banks – who essentially know that their loans will be “covered” by governmental agencies of the metropolitan world in the case of a default by the developing country:

“With their currencies in free fall, the Asian countries needed outside assistance to meet their debt payments and reinstate confidence in their economies. The United States squashed a Japanese attempt to lead a regional initiative to buttress the Asian economies, insisting that any rescue attempt be undertaken through the IMF. Enter the IMF and U.S. Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin. .. they diagnosed the essential Asian problem not as too much globalization, but too little. And they prescribed the most vicious version of globalization — structural adjustment. The IMF programs, agreed to by the Asian countries as a condition for receiving the money needed to pay off debts to foreign banks, forced interest rates up in an effort to re-attract foreign capital. They envision the Asian countries exporting their way out of economic distress. They therefore do not worry about depressed wages and workers thrown out of their jobs — indeed, in this view, lower wages make exports more competitive. And, out of concern that public sector debts will exacerbate balance-of-payments difficulties, they demand governments maintain balanced budgets, even as tax revenues drop due to declining economic activity. The overriding “logic” of these measures is that harsh medicine now will prevent worse pain later; that high interest rates, devalued currencies and balanced or surplus budgets will attract the foreign investment that will jumpstart the Asian economies.. . . In Indonesia, the IMF has forced the removal of fuel and food subsidies on which the poor have relied for three decades; food riots are becoming more prevalent as the Monitor goes to press. Economic collapse has led hospitals to conserve on the use of thread during surgery. In South Korea, the IMF has forced the closure of banks and corporations — one million workers are expected to be thrown out of their jobs by the end of the year. None of this pain has been shared by the big European, Japanese and U.S. banks that made bad loans in Asia. The IMF bailouts, and the complementary bailout packages from the U.S. and other rich countries, are all about injecting money into the Asian economies so they can pay back their foreign debts. The money comes in and goes out. The banks get their money, the countries contract new debts to the IMF and get stuck with the IMF austerity demands. By all rights, one of the consequences of the crisis should be that the banks which made bad loans in South Korea and elsewhere in Asia should have to eat their losses. The amounts at stake are not insignificant: U.S. banks’ exposure in South Korea is estimated to total more than $20 billion. BankAmerica alone reportedly has more than $3 billion in outstanding loans to South Korean firms, and Citicorp more than $2 billion. The other major U.S. banks with outstanding loans to South Korea include J.P. Morgan, Bankers Trust, the Bank of New York and Chase Manhattan.”

Editorial:”The Multinational Monitor: “Lessons from the Asian Meltdown”; January/February 1998; Volume 19 · Numbers 1 & 2

iii) The Direction of Foreign Direct Investment (FDI)

It is of interest that there ahs been a major change in the targets of FDI (i.e. capital exports). Whilst in 1915 the target was mainly the colonies, even then Lenin identified that the imperialist were interested in any geographical area of potential profit. Thus Lenin ridiculed Kautsky’s view that the essence of imperialism was that of an exploitation of rural areas:

“The characteristic feature of imperialism is precisely that it strives to annex not only agricultural regions, but even highly industrialized regions (German appetite for Belgium; French appetite for Lorraine), because 1) the fact that the world is already divided up obliges those contemplating any kind of new division to reach out for any kind of territory, and 2) because an essential feature of imperialism is the rivalry between a number of great powers in the striving for hegemony i.e. For the conquest of territory, not so much directly for themselves but also to weaken the adversary. (Belgium is chiefly necessary to Germany as a base for operation against England; England needs Baghdad as a base for operation against Germany etc.)”;

Lenin Op Cit; p. 702.

In this regard, there have been two changes:

One is the decline in capital exports from the United Kingdom; but this is entirely consistent with the British decline as an imperialist power.

This is Lenin’s law of “uneven development” i.e. swings in fortunes of different imperialisms.

But Secondly, the destination of much capital export has also changed. Much more than before it now flows towards the developed world:

“It was during the 1960′s that the UK began to re-build its pre-war reputation as a pre-eminent capital exporter, although unlike the interior years, the greater part of the new capital flows took the form of direct rather than portfolio investment. While traditional Commonwealth markets continued to attract the bulk of investment, an increasing amount of manufacturing and service activities by UK Multinational enterprises was beginning to be directed to the US and Continental Europe”;

Dunning Ibid; p.2.

Furthermore as Graph 2: below shows, outward and inward flows of FDI (Capital exports) to the USA either favoured the outward direction, or were balanced – on the whole – over the period 1970-1993 (Data from UNCTAD cited by Dunning Ibid; p. 307).

Graph 2: In hard copy only.

The reasons for this change of direction – from colonial to developed country – reflects several factors including A need to obtain higher research & Development; a need to obtain new markets; a need to incapacitate foreign competition. None of it ever did away with a continuing export of capital to the under-developed neo-colonies.

In Summary: We do not feel that this part of Lenin’s definition of imperialist monopoly capital has changed.

(4) the formation of international monopolist capitals associations which share the world among themselves,

We have already dealt with this under 5.(1) above.

(5) The territorial division of the whole world among the biggest capitalist powers is completed.”

It must be quickly acknowledged that this has not only not changed since Lenin’s day, but the operation of this colonialisation has if anything become even more intense.

The inevitable war for markets between the dominant imperialisms continue. Today, this competition has become even much more intense, than in Lenin’s day. The formation of huge trading blocks, of which the most obvious examples are: NAFTA; EEC; ASEAN.

Jaques Attali (former and Founding head of the European Bank for Reconstruction & Development) puts it this way:

“Having overcome their strategic subordination to the rule of military force with the end of ideological hostilities between the US and the Soviet Union, two new powers – a European sphere stretching from London to Moscow and a Pacific spheres based in Tokyo – will contest for supremacy Certainly the United States does not intend to retire voluntarily from center stage…In the 21st century a fierce struggle for supremacy will take place among cities, nations even continents.. The most likely result is likely to be the continued juxtaposition of two contending spheres (the Pacific and the European) with two centresIN the Pacific and in Europe questions must be asked: Who will have the dominant currency? Who will control defense? Where will the principal financial markets be located? Sadly none of this will cause tension to disappear.”

Attali J: “Millenium. Winners & Losers in the Coming World Order”; New York; 1991; pp.10; 40; 64-65;

In Summary: We do not feel that this part of Lenin’s definition of imperialist monopoly capital has changed

Overall Summary To Part 5:

We are forced to conclude that there has been no QUALITATIVE change in Lenin’s working definitions. We note only an EXACERBATION of ALL of the underlying tendencies to:

A crisis of over-production; an increasing

rate of exploitation; a decreasing rate of profit; a drive to further fights over markets; and an increasing need to subjugate dependent countries by imperialist capital.

The OBJECTIVE corollaries are that revolution is even more inevitable and even more needed to resolve the underlying contradictions of an increased socialized mode of production owned by a small, private and exclusively small coterie of profiteers.

OBJECTIVELY, the role of the National Question remains important, but the role of the national bourgeois – and its ability to fight against foreign capital is ever decreasing. That OBJECTIVELY means that the working class and peasantry have even greater responsibility to ensure they capture the leadership of national struggles as in East Timor, Kosova etc.

But – This is only hindered by the SUBJECTIVE weaknesses of the revolutionary movements and the lack of a unitary Marxist-Leninist party in each country.

6. Increasing Economic Crisis

We pointed out in Alliance 3, that neither Keynsian economics nor monetarist economics could solve the capitalist problem, Keynsian economics led to “cheapening” of money by inflation and depressed profits of the financiers.

Monetarism depressed the profits of industrialists and led to unemployment.

The capitalist system continues to lurch from crisis to crisis:

“For Southeast Asia the “golden age” of exponential growth, rising real incomes, and social consensus is over. After years of speculative euphoria and wildly inflating asset prices fuelled in large part by external capital flows, the East Asian financial bubble has burst with a vengeance. Southeast Asian countries have become the victims of the very process of economic internationalisation and integration to global capital flows which accounted for their accelerated, albeit highly uneven, development throughout the decade. While the first phase of economic takeoff of Southeast Asia’s “dragons” was triggered by large inflows of Japanese direct investment, their growth pattern has over the past decade been increasingly shaped and distorted since the early 1990s by vast nomad financial inflows seeking high returns on investment in emerging markets (Net private capital flows to emerging countries was multiplied by six since 1990, from $50 billion to over $300 billion in 1996.) In 1995-96 East Asia became the world’s chief recipient of foreign capital. Volatile by nature, these flows – portfolio investment, bonds, and bank loans with short maturities – sustained the very high rates of domestic investment (productive and speculative), capital accumulation, growth and indebtedness which fuelled the “East Asian miracle”, but they also quite classically inflated endogenous bubbles in the property and equity markets. The phenomenon was particularly evident in Thailand, epicenter of the crisis, where net external portfolio investment rose from $2.5 billion in 1994 to $4.1 billion in 1995, and short-term debt from $29.2 billion to $41.4 billion, despite warning signs of a coming deflation of the over-invested property sector and strains in the over-exposed banking system. The deflation of the Thai property and stock market bubble in 1996 (stock market values fell by 40%) prefigured the far more brutal crisis which struck this year Currency speculation began against the Thai baht in May 1997 and then spread in waves to the rest of the region in the summer, leading to the massive and uncontrollable repatriation of capital which followed. The impact of the shock was in direct proportion to the dependence of these economies on external flows. By contrast, far less internationalised economies such as India or Vietnam have been largely insulated from the crisis. . The 25-40% depreciation of local currencies has mechanically increased foreign debt. At the end of October, Indonesia’s debt, already $110 billion (50% of GNP), increased by 37%, that of Thailand (43% of GNP) by 35% and that of Malaysia by 27%. As these are mostly private debts contracted by local banks borrowing on the international inter-bank market for onward lending, at enormous interest rate differentials, to now insolvent domestic customers, the depreciations have caused a wave of defaults in already shaky banking systems. Nor are these depreciations likely to lead to an export-led recovery. The region’s manufacturing sector will be penalised by high-interest rates regimes (bond spreads have exploded since the beginning of the crisis), designed to reassure foreign investors. While the high import content of Asian exports, notably in the electronic sector (where products are assembled from components manufactured outside the exporting country) means that there will be little competitive gain accruing from depreciation. These mechanical deflationary effects will be compounded by the dampening effects of austerity cures and “stabilisation programmes” demanded by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) in exchange for financial aid packages designed to shore up the region’s financial markets ($23 billion in Indonesia and $17 billion in Thailand).”

Le Monde Diplomatique; “Asia’s Financial Crisis, An Uncontrollable Contagion. A turning point for globalisation by Philip S. Golub; January 1998

The Great Surge in the markets is clearly a part of a “bubble economy”; as even very recent scares revealed:

“Stock and bond prices fell around the world yesterday as data showing higher wholesale prices in the US and cautionary remarks on equity prices by Alan Greenspan, chairman of the Federal Reserve, combined to fuel investors’ fears of imminent interest rate rises. On Wall Street the Dow Jones Industrial Average fell by 266.9 points, or 2.6 per cent, to 10,019.7, having dipped briefly below the 10,000 level for the first time in six months. It ended the week down 5.9 per cent, or 630 points, its largest weekly point drop. Bonds rallied slightly after stock prices fell, and the long bond yield dropped to 6.266. The DAX index in Frankfurt followed three days of 1 percentage point declines with a further 0.7 per cent loss. In Paris, the CAC 40 fell 1.3 per cent, while in London, the FTSE 100 index dropped through the 6,000 level, falling 132.1 points to 5,907.3. Earlier the Tokyo market dropped 1 per cent, while Singapore and Malaysia were more than 2 per cent lower. The dollar fell sharply across the board, hitting seven-month lows against the euro, and dropping rapidly against the yen and sterling. The euro pushed above $1.09 in London trading before settling just below that level, a cent and a half up on the day. With the imminent 12th anniversary of Black Monday, some traders saw echoes of 1987 when a falling dollar, rising US trade deficit and rising bond yields prompted a stock market crash. Yesterday’s rout followed a warning late on Thursday Mr. Greenspan that markets might be underestimating the degree of riskiness of equity investments. The negative impact of the remarks was reinforced by the Commerce Department’s report yesterday that US wholesale prices jumped by 1.1 per cent in September from the previous month, the fastest rate in nine years, driven by increases in food, energy, tobacco and car prices. The unusual concurrence of inflationary factors led some economists to suggest the producer price figures might not reflect a broader upward trend in prices. Fuel costs have been rising for some time in response to the global increase in oil prices and food costs are always volatile on a monthly basis. Excluding these components, the core index increased by 0.8 per cent. But this figure was distorted by a once-off 8.4 per cent rise in tobacco prices in response to legal settlements, and a 2 per cent rise in car prices. If these are excluded the increase in the index drops to just 0.3 per cent. But many economists warned that the overall trend in prices was clearly upward”.

“World stock prices fall as fears grow of rising inflation”; By Gerard Baker in Washington, Lesia Rudakewych in New York and Philip Coggan in London “, Financial Times, Saturday October 16 1999

There is also a great over-production of goods with the inevitable anarchic glut of goods amidst increasing poverty, that is characteristic of the capitalist systems.

7. What This Means for The National Question

We think that both the recent Asian crises and the currency manipulations in Malaysia, show the first implications for a foreign independent nation trying to stand up to foreign capital. The next stage of smashing defiance is shown by the USA_NATO led aggression in the Kosovan war and the more recent East Timor crisis and war.

Both show the Implications of globalisation for the National Question for Marxist-Leninists today.. These can be codified as below:

i) Trample national rights by both economic and currency manipulations via speculation; and denial of foreign markets for countries that stand defiant;

ii) If continued resistance to the will of the imperialist countries occurs, open invasions on the pretext of “international law and order”;

iii) The resulting denial of national rights means the current (i.e. today’s – even in the era of so called “globalisation”) validity of Lenin’s original formulation regarding the strategy and tactics of the revolution in colonial type countries. These were essentially formulated at the Second Congress of Comintern. We have discussed these elsewhere in detail and their application and their revisionist distortions by Trotsky and Kussinen (See Alliance 5; Alliance 29); by Khruschev (See Alliance 25 January 1997); and by Ho Chi Minh (See Alliance 27 December 1997).

iv) Marxist-Leninists must avoid false designations of “national status” as in the so called “Black Nation” of the USA (See Alliance 23); while also avoiding support to the bleating of Nationalists of the smaller “minor” partners of capital and imperialism who while being imperialists are themselves subject to predation by bigger imperialisms (e.g. The minor partners of imperialism like the Canadian bourgeoisie etc.)

v) Marxist-Leninists must continually strive to win the leadership of the national liberation struggles that continue to break out, especially since the historical space for the progressive potential for the national bourgeoisie is ever decreasing in the era of greater inter-penetration of capitalism and imperialism.

Lenin’s Differentiation of the “bourgeois-democrat” and the “nationalist-revolutionary”

In brief here, the only change made in Lenin’s original Draft Theses as adopted by the Second Comintern Congress was to make clear that the working class in a colonial type country should support a bourgeois-led movement only if it was genuinely revolutionary- the term “bourgeois democratic” being replaced by the term “nationalist-revolutionary”:

“We came to the conclusion that the only correct thing to do was .. nearly everywhere to substitute the term “nationalist-revolutionary” for the term “bourgeois-democratic”. The meaning of this change is that we Communists should and will, support bourgeois liberation movements in the colonial countries only when these movements are really revolutionary.”

Lenin. Report of the Commission of the National and Colonial Questions. 2nd Congress CI, In Selected Works”, Volume 10, London, 1946, p.241.

Lenin explained in more detail why this was needed then:

“I would like to particularly emphasise the question of the bourgeois democratic movements in backward countries. It was this question that gave rise to some disagreement. We argued about whether it would be correct, in principle and in theory, to declare that the CI and the CP’s should support the bourgeois-democratic movement in backward countries. As a result of this discussion we unanimously decided to speak of the nationalist-revolutionary movements instead of the ‘bourgeois-democratic’ movement. There is not the slightest doubt that every nationalist movement can only be a bourgeois-democratic movement.. But it was agreed that if we speak about the bourgeois-democratic movement all distinction between reformist and revolutionary movements will be obliterated; whereas in recent times this distinction has been fully and clearly revealed in the backward and colonial countries, for the imperialist bourgeois is trying with all its might to implant the reformist movement also among the oppressed nations.. In the commission this was proved irrefutably, and we came to the conclusion that the only correct thing to do was to take this distinction into consideration and nearly everywhere to substitute the term “nationalist-revolutionary” for the term “bourgeois-democratic”. The meaning of this change is that we communists should, and will, support bourgeois liberation movements only when these movement do not hinder us in training and organising the peasants and the broad masses of the exploited in a revolutionary spirit.. The above mentioned distinction has now been drawn in all the theses, and I think that, thanks to this, our point of view has been formulated much more precisely.”

Lenin. The Report Of the Commission on the National and Colonial Questions, “Selected Works”, Vol 10, London, 1946, p.240-1.

Like so much of what we have discussed in this article, Lenin saw very clearly.

We submit that neither regarding Imperialism’s character, nor upon the National Question – is there any need to “update” (i.e. Revise) Lenin and Stalin in fundamental ways. What astonishes us is how accurately the general un-folding of imperialism in the era of “globalisation” conforms to Lenin’s analyses made so long ago.

Finally, the under-developed neo-colonies have progressive forces that recognise the need for NATIONAL FORMS OF STRUGGLE:

“The Zapatistas believe that in Mexico recovery and defence of national sovereignty are part of the anti-liberal revolution. Paradoxically, the ZNLA finds itself accused of attempting to fragment the Mexican nation. The reality is that the only forces that have spoken for separatism are the businessmen of the oil-rich state of Tabasco, and the Institutional Revolutionary Party members of parliament from Chiapas. The Zapatistas, for their part, think that it is necessary to defend the nation state in the face of globalisation, and that the attempts to break Mexico into fragments are being made by the government, and not by the just demands of the Indian peoples for autonomy. The ZNLA and the majority of the national indigenous movement want the Indian peoples not to separate from Mexico but to be recognised as an integral part of the country, with their own specificities. They also aspire to a Mexico, which espouses democracy, freedom and justice. Whereas the ZNLA fights to defend national sovereignty, the Mexican Federal Army functions to protect a government which has destroyed the material bases of sovereignty and which has offered the country not only to large-scale foreign capital, but also to drug trafficking. It is not only in the mountains of southeast Mexico that neoliberalism is being resisted. “

“Why We Are Fighting-The fourth world war has begun” By Sub-Commandant Marcos; Zapatista National Liberation Army (ZNLA).” September 1997; In Le Monde Diplomatique

It is the responsibility of the Marxist-Leninists to both harnesses this recognition – and to enable it to fulfill its goal of liberation of the people, by utilizing the strategy and tactics of the National Liberation struggle as worked out by Lenin and Stalin.

WE MUST RE-BUILD THE MARXIST-LENINIST COMMUNIST INTERNATIONAL!

“GLOBALISATION” FOR CAPITAL MANDATES REVOLUIONARY PROLETARIAN INTERNATIONALISM!

BUILD THE MARXIST-LENINIST PARTIES IN EACH COUNTRY!

October 1999.

Source

A Quote From the Good Doctor Victor von Doom

doctor-doom1

“My methods are a means to an end, no different than pruning weeds in order to let an orchid flourish. Those who stand in the way of my vision oppose me because they fear me, but more than that they fear what I represent. Change. Do you know what I despise Richards? And T’Challa? Because never once have they reined in their own self-righteous arrogance long enough to try and see what I see. Never once have they asked me: why? Do you want to know? Love. Measure my crimes against what mankind does to itself, and I am a saint. … I have looked into the future, I have seen how one violent action after another spins the world toward a future where all that remains of Earth is a burned out cinder. Every time I have looked into the future, that is what I have seen. Every time but one. In one possible future mankind becomes united. Cures for all diseases are found. Global conflict ends. Hunger is abolished. Education is universal. And no one goes without. In that world, there are laws. To break even the slightest of these is to suffer immediate and terminal punishment. … Ten thousand futures have I looked at. A hundred thousand. And in only one does mankind finally unite, and flourish…and survive. Only one. Doomworld.”

– Doctor Doom

International Workingmen’s Association, a.k.a. First International on the Vanguard Party

soiree

Statements made by the First International or the International Working Men’s Association, endorsed by Marx and Engels, spoke of the need for a vanguard party. In the “Resolution on Working Class Political Action” from the September, 1871 London Conference, reprinted below, they explicitly endorse the idea of an independent working class party. I think this is extremely important, as it shows evidence of the possibility of Marx and Engels, and the working class movement as a whole, moving in the direction closer to the Leninist idea of the vanguard. This flies in the face of the liberal intellectual idea of Marx and Engels as being “anti-party” or believing in “spontaneity.”

 - E.S.

Considering the following passage of the preamble to the Rules:

“The economic emancipation of the working classes is the great end to which every political movement ought to be subordinate as a means”;

That the Inaugural Address of the International Working Men’s Association (1864) states:

“The lords of land and the lords of capital will always use their political privileges for the defence and perpetuation of their economic monopolies. So far from promoting, they will continue to lay every possible impediment in the way of the emancipation of labour… To conquer political power has therefore become the great duty of the working classes”;

That the Congress of Lausanne (1867) has passed this resolution:

“The social emancipation of the workmen is inseparable from their political emancipation”;

That the declaration of the General Council relative to the pretended plot of the French Internationalists on the eve of the plebiscite (1870) says:

“Certainly by the tenor of our Statutes, all our branches in England, on the Continent, and in America have the special mission not only to serve as centres for the militant organization of the working class, but also to support, in their respective countries, every political movement tending towards the accomplishment of our ultimate end – the economic emancipation of the working class”;

That false translations of the original Statutes have given rise to various interpretations which were mischievous to the development and action of the International Working Men’s Association;

In presence of an unbridled reaction which violently crushes every effort at emancipation on the part of the working men, and pretends to maintain by brute force the distinction of classes and the political domination of the propertied classes resulting from it;

Considering, that against this collective power of the propertied classes the working class cannot act, as a class, except by constituting itself into a political party, distinct from, and opposed to, all old parties formed by the propertied classes;

That this constitution of the working class into a political party is indispensable in order to ensure the triumph of the social revolution and its ultimate end – the abolition of classes;

That the combination of forces which the working class has already effected by its economic struggles ought at the same time to serve as a lever for its struggles against the political power of landlords and capitalists

The Conference recalls to the members of the International:

That in the militant state of the working class, its economic movement and its political action are indissolubly united.

Source

The Carve-Up of Cyprus

Cyprus

By the Marxist-Leninist Organisation of Britain; Special Issue of “Class Against Class”; No.7, 1974. Reprinted by Alliance Marxist-Leninist, 2003.

BEHIND THE EVENTS IN CYPRUS OF JULY 1974 — THE COUPS AND COUNTER-COUPS, THE MASS GRAVES AND THE INVASION — ARE TO BE FOUND THE BLOODY HANDS OF THE UNITED STATES IMPERIALISTS, STRIVING DESPERATELY TO RECOVER SOME OF THE INFLUENCE THEY HAVE LOST DURING THE PAST DECADE.

THE AIM OF THE US MANOEUVRES IS TO BRING THE STRATEGIC MEDITERRANEAN ISLAND OF CYPRUS MORE FIRMLY INTO THE GRIP OF THE UNITED STATES’ CLIENT STATES, GREECE AND TURKEY, AND SO WITHIN THE ORBIT OF THE US-DOMINATED NATO MILITARY BLOC OF WHICH BOTH THESE STATES ARE MEMBERS.

The “Independence” of Cyprus

The island of Cyprus (about half the size of Wales) is situated in the eastern Mediterranean, 40 miles south of Turkey and 60 miles west of Syria. Of its population of some 600,000, 82% are of Greek origin (the Greek Cypriots) and 18% are of Turkish origin (the Turkish Cypriots).

From the 16th century until 1878, Cyprus formed part of the Turkish Empire, but in the latter year it came under the effective control of Britain. In November 1914, on the outbreak of World War I, Britain annexed the island, and it became a British colony in 1925.

The movement for liberation began under Turkish rule among the Greek Cypriots, who suffered particular oppression, and its main demand was for “Hellenic unity”, for “enosis” (that is, union with Greece). The movement continued to develop under British rule, and with the development of a weak Cypriot national bourgeoisie this class came to lead the liberation struggle. The effective leader of the movement was the Ethnarch of the Greek Orthodox Church, Mihail Mouskos — Archbishop Makarios — and embraced two organisations:

1) the National Organisation for Cypriot Struggle (EOKA), a right-wing body sponsored by the Greek government and led for many years by Greek General Georgios Grivas; and by

2) the Progressive Party of the Working People of Cyprus (AKEL) a body representing more directly the interests of the Cypriot national bourgeoisie, and presenting a left-wing image to appeal to the workers, peasants and urban petty bourgeoisie; it is now led by Ezekias Papaioannou.

As the liberation movement developed after World War II to the point where direct British colonial rule became no longer practicable, agreement was reached at conferences in Zurich and London in February 1959 (the latter attended by representatives of the British, Turkish and Greek governments and of the Cypriot liberation movement) for the transformation of the colony into a nominally “independent”, but in reality neo-colonial, “Republic of Cyprus”. This change was brought about by an Act of the British Parliament, and the Republic of Cyprus came into existence on August 16th, 1960.

In December 1959, prior to the granting of “independence”, elections were held for a Provisional President of Cyprus, Makarios stood on a platform of acceptance, with reservations, of the British imperialists’ plan and was elected by a large majority.

Despite the fact that Makarios represented the interests of the Cypriot national bourgeoisie, the British imperialists felt it safe to hand over “power” to a government headed by him by reason of the antagonisms artificially built up between the Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot communities on the island, believing that these antagonisms and other “safeguards” could be effective in preventing the Makarios government from taking any steps to end the neo-colonial status of the island.

In the first place, the “Basic Structure of the Republic of Cyprus” imposed on the people of the island obliged the Cyprus government:

“not to participate, in whole or in part, in any political or economic union with any state whatsoever”,

while the Treaty of Guarantee by which the British, Greek and Turkish governments undertook to recognise and maintain:

“the independence, territorial integrity and security”,

of the Republic of Cyprus provided that:

“In the event of any breach of the provisions of the treaty of Greece, the United Kingdom and Turkey undertake to consult together with a view to making representations or taking the necessary steps to ensure observance of these provisions.

In so far as common or concerted action may prove impossible, each of the three guaranteeing Powers reserves the right to take action with the sole aim of re-establishing the state of affairs established by the Treaty”.

In the second places the Basic Structure gave representatives of the Turkish Cypriot minority (in fact, of the Turkish Cypriot comprador bourgeoisie, i.e., that section of the Turkish Cypriot capitalist class linked with and dependent upon imperialism) the right of veto over all important acts of the government, and was designed to intensify to the maximum the artificially created antagonisms between the two communities. The Turkish Cypriot minority was given separate electoral registers, separate municipal councils in towns where there were significant numbers of Turkish Cypriots, the right to appoint 3 of the 10 members of the Council of Ministers (government), and the right to elect the Vice-President, with powers of veto corresponding to those of the President. 30% of the police and 40% of the proposed 2,000-strong army had to be composed of Turkish Cypriots, and each of the communities had to elect a Communal Chamber with powers to levy taxation on its community and to regulate matters of education, culture and religion.

In the third place, Greece was permitted to keep a contingent of 950 troops on the island, Turkey a contingent of 650, and Britain an unlimited number of troops in two bases 99 sq. miles in area over which Britain retained sovereignty.

Cyprus was to remain within the sterling monetary bloc controlled by the British imperialists and to accord most-favoured-nation status to Britain, Greece and Turkey. In March 1961 it was admitted to the Commonwealth.

The “independent” Republic of Cyprus which came into being on August l6th, 1960 was, in reality a neo-colony of British imperialism.

The Manoeuvres of the Makarios Government

Unwilling to mobilise the masses of the Cypriot people for an armed struggle for genuine national liberation, the Makarios government — possessing no state apparatus of force of its own and surrounded by powerful enemies armed to the teeth — sought to advance Cyprus towards genuine unification and national liberation by manoeuvres, by seeking to take advantage of the contradictions between the various powers.

Five months after “independence”, in January 1961, the Cyprus House of Representatives approved a government Bill to proceed with the setting up of an army. On October 20th. the Bill was vetoed by the Turkish Cypriot Vice-President, Fazil Kutchuk.

In December 1962 Makarios attempted by Presidential decree to set up single, unified municipal councils in the towns. The mass of the Turkish Cypriots were persuaded by their comprador bourgeois leaders that this measure represented a “threat” to their community, and proceeded to organise armed bands to resist the operation of the decree in the areas where separate Turkish Cypriot municipal councils functioned. The Greek Cypriots were in turn persuaded by their comprador bourgeois politicians to form similar armed bands, and during 1963 armed clashes between the unofficial forces of the two communities increased, reaching a peak of violence in December 1963.

By this time the economic and military strength of British imperialism had greatly declined relative to that of United States imperialism, and in January 1964, on the pretext that the Cyprus government was unable to maintain order, Washington put forward a plan to send a NATO “Peace-keeping force” to the island. In the face of the firm objections of the Cyprus government, this plan was changed to a “United Nations Peace-keeping Force” (UNFICYP), which was formally established in March 1964. As a manoeuvre to press the Cypriot people into acceptance of this foreign armed forces the Turkish government in collaboration with its Washington overlords, had ordered its troops on the island to set up road blocks and was threatening, to invade the island “to protect the Turkish-Cypriot community”.

On April 19th., 1964 the Turkish Foreign Minister, Federidun Erkkin, declared that Turkey would insist on “a federal solution” to the “problem of Cyprus”, and successive Turkish governments since that date have reaffirmed that aim.

By the spring of 1964 the UN forces were manning barricades between the Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot communities all over Cyprus. The representatives of the Turkish Cypriot comprador bourgeoisie then withdrew from the government and the House of Representatives and behind the barricades, proceeded to set up their own “semi state”. This was formally inaugurated on December 29th,, 1967 as a “Transitional Administration“, with its own “President” (Fazil Kutchuk), Vice-President” (Rauf Denktash), Executive Council (government), House of Representatives, courts and police — a rebellion against the Cyprus government carried out under the protection of the UN force and its own unofficial army, 10,000 strong.

The government replied in kind. On June lst,, 1964 the House of Representatives, in the absence of the Turkish Cypriot representatives, passed a Bill setting up a National Guard on the basis of conscription of the Greek Cypriot population. The measure was allowed to go into effect on one important condition: that it was officered by 650 officers from the Greek army. The Cypriot people were enjoined to have confidence in the “good faith” of the new “progressive” government of Georgios Papandreou elected on February l6th., 1964.

Then seeking to take advantage of the contradictions between the US imperialists and the Soviet neo-imperialists, in August 1964 Makarios appealed for military aid to the Soviet Union and Egypt; on October 1st. the Soviet government agreed to sell Soviet arms to Cyprus. Later in the month, at the Conference of Non-Aligned States in Cairo, Makarios pledged that the Cyprus government would pursue “a foreign policy of non-alignment”. On his return to Cyprus, an officially-sponsored campaign began demanding the elimination of British bases from the island.

The Soviet arms failed to arrive. On March 30th., 1965 the ships carrying them to Cyprus under the agreement of October 1964 were diverted, as the result of a secret ultimatum from Washington.

Meanwhile, the Makarios government proceeded with its attempts to bring some degree of unification to the island. On November 28th., 1964 the House of Representatives approved a Bill establishing unified municipal councils in the principal towns. And in July 1965 it passed two further Bills: one abolished separate electoral registers; the other set up a Ministry of Education to take over one of the main functions of the Communal Chambers.

On October 11 th., 1965, in an effort to win over the Turkish Cypriot workers, peasants and urban petty bourgeoisie from their comprador bourgeois politicians, the Makarios government issued a “Declaration of,Minority Rights“, promising autonomy for minorities in matters of education, culture and religion, together with reserved seats in the House of Representatives and local councils in proportion to population. The government of Turkey, claiming to speak for the Turkish Cypriot community, immediately denounced the declaration as – “unconstitutional” on the grounds that the Turkish Cypriot community constituted not a “minority” but a “national community with special rights”.

By 1966 Greece had become a semi-colony of US imperialism, and this position of dependence was reinforced by the military coup of 1967 which established a military dictatorship in Greece subservient to US imperialism. From now on the demand of the Cypriot national bourgeoisie (represented by the Makarios government) for national independence had the overwhelming support of the mass of the Greek Cypriots, while enosis became the demand only of the pro-imperialist Greek Cypriot comprador bourgeoisie. At the Presidential election of February 1968 Makarios received of the votes, while his pro-enosis opponent, Takis Evdokas, received only 450′. In February 1973 Makarios was returned unopposed.

The Plot is Hatched

By 1971 Makarios had become

“…the ‘Castro of the Mediterranean’ in the eyes of Athens and the Pentagon”.

(“The Observer”. July- 2list., 1974; p. 7).

It was in June of that year that Makarios paid an official visit to the Soviet Union.

AND IT WAS IN THAT YEAR THAT THE PLAN TO OVERTHROW THE MAKARIOS GOVERNMENT BY FORCE AND TO CARVE UP THE ISLAND OF CYPRUS WAS AGREED UPON.

In its issue of May/June 1972 the then organ of the Marxist-Leninist Organisation of Britain summed up the plot of the US imperialists in relation to Cyprus:

“In September 1971 a campaign was launched by the Greek fascist regime, in collaboration with the US imperialists, for the overthrow of the Cyprus government of the Patriotic Front headed by Archbishop Makarios and representing the Cypriot national bourgeoisie.

In this month Greek General George Grivas was landed secretly on the island and given sanctuary in the Greek military headquarters from where he proceeded to issue communiques denouncing Makarios as a “traitor” for opposing Enosis (the union of Cyprus with Greece).

Faced with the opposition of Turkey to full Greek control of Cyprus, at the end of 1971 a secret meeting of representatives of Greece and Turkey took place in Lisbon under the auspices of NATO, at which plans for partitioning the island between the two NATO states were agreed upon.

In an effort to defend itself, the Cyprus government — which has no armed forces of its own apart from a small Presidential bodyguard — imported arms from Czechoslovakia. The Greek government then sent an ultimatum to the Cyprus government demanding the surrender of the arms and the formation of a “government of national unity” which would include pro-Enosis politicians. It was planned that, if this ultimatum was rejected, the Greek-officered National Guard would overthrow the government.

However, when the Soviet imperialists, anxious to prevent the passing of this strategically important island into the control of the bloc dominated by US imperialism, intervened and declared their full backing for the Makarios government, the US government anxious to avoid for the time being a direct confrontation with their Soviet rivals in the Mediterranean — forced the Greek fascist regime to hold up its planned coup”.

(RED FRONT, May/June 1972; p. 6).

The Plot is Put into Effect

By the summer of 1974, the reasons for postponement of the planned coup mentioned above were no longer operative. In the EEC, West German imperialism had, following the removal of Willy Brandt as Chancellor, swung towards US imperialism, while Britain had a Labour government representing that section of British monopoly capital dependent upon US imperialism. Furthermore, the position of the Soviet neo-imperialists had been greatly weakened as a result of events in the Middle East.

In July therefore, the plot was put into effect.

The pretext for action was a note from Makarios to Greek President Phaedon Gizikis on July 2nd., demanding the recall of the Greek officers of the National Guard on the grounds that they had been collaborating with EOKA-B (the terrorist Organisation formed by Grivas following his return to Cyprus in 1979 and continuing in existence after Grivas’s death in January 1974) in attempts to assassinate him and overthrow the government. The note set the deadline of July 20th. for compliance with the demand.

So, on July 16th, on the orders of their Greek officers, units of the (Greek Cypriot)–National Guard, in full collaboration with EOKA-B and with the Greek troops stationed on the island, staged a military coup and established a military dictatorship over the part of the island outside the enclaves under the control of the Turkish Cypriot comprador bourgeoisie’s “Transitional Administration”. A new puppet “President” was installed, one Nicos Sampson, a curfew imposed and thousands of supporters of the Makarios government arrested.

The Greek government recognised its puppet regime almost immediately. while the Turkish government threatened that unless the situation in Cyprus were reversed it would order its troops to invade Cyprus under the Treaty of Guarantee.

For four days the US imperialists and their allies in London, not only took no action, they deliberately obstructed the calling of the Security Council of the United Nations which could have taken some action. As Lord Caradon put it bluntly in a letter to the press:

“Due to the deliberate delay of the United States and the United Kingdom, it was not until after the invasion (i.e. of Cyprus by Turkish troops — Ed.) that the Security Council passed any resolution at all”.

(Lord Caradon: Letter to “The Guardian” 11 July 31st, 1974; p. 12).

Meanwhile, Makarios had managed to escape from Cyprus. He was received by the British government with formal, but non-committal, protocol, but the United States government talked with him only in his ecclesiastical capacity”:

“The President (i.e., Makarios — Ed.) had been given the chilly US reception of — in Dr. Kissinger’s terms — ‘a loser’, without hope of a comeback”.

(“The Observer”, July 28th.9 1974; p. 9).

On July 20th., therefore, some thousands of Turkish troops invaded northern Cyprus according to plan, occupying the principal area inhabited by Turkish Cypriots from the port of Kyrenia to the outskirts of the capital, Nicosia.

Later the same day, the US and British imperialists brought the Security Council into action, and it passed a resolution calling for an immediate cease-fire on Cyprus. And Greece and Turkey — despite being, according to the world press “on the verge of war” – dutifully obeyed.

As for the Soviet neo-imperialists, the calculations of Washington that they would do no more than issue a verbal protest proved accurate:

“The Soviet Union has been careful to avoid direct criticism of the United States. . . . . Moscow has been signalling to the United States that it wants in effect no repetition of last autumn’s nuclear alert over the Middle East.

Yesterday the official news agency Tass put out an angry denial of Western agency reports that Soviet ships in the Eastern Mediterranean . . . . had been put on alert. The reports were a provocation and utterly false”.

(“The Guardian” July 22nd; 1974; p.13)

THE FIRST, MILITARY STAGE OF THE PLOT AGAINST CYPRUS HAD NOW BEEN COMPLETED. THE SECOND STAGE WAS TO ERECT A “DEMOCRATIC” FACADE OVER THE RESULTS OF THE FIRST STAGE.

The Colonels Take Off Their Uniforms

On July 23rd. the military junta that had exercised a military dictatorship suddenly stepped into the background over the people of Greece since 1967, and announced that they had invited civilian politician Konstantinos Karamanlis to form a civilian Cabinet.

Karamanlis is mainly remembered for his role as Prime Minister in arranging the murder (and its subsequent cover-up) of rival politician Gregori Lambrakis (portrayed in the film “X”). While in exile in Paris, he was in June 1965 committed for trial by an investigating committee of the Greek Parliament for “bribery, dereliction of duty and maladministration”.

Due to an unfortunate error, the “democratic revolution” in Athens was announced by US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger the day before it actually happened. Even the capitalist press was compelled to treat the “revolution” with some cynicism:

“Dr. Kissinger and his emissary Mr. Joseph Sisco have played a key role in promoting governmental change in Gioecell.”

(“The Guardian”, July 24th., 1974; p. 2).

And in fact, little fundamental in Athens seemed to be changed. True, a considerable number of political prisoners were released (a necessary step in order to obtain enough politicians to form a government). But Brigadier-General Dimtrios Ioannides remained in office as head of the hated military police, martial law continued and in his Message to the Nation Karamanlis was careful not to mention the word “democratisation”.

By a curious coincidence, another “democratic revolution” took place in Cyprus. The appalling Sampson stepped down and was replaced by the more respectable figure of Glafkos Clerides, President of the House of Representatives as “President” of Cyprus. Again the capitalist press treated the change cynically:

“From the start, the planners of the coup had earmarked Mr. Clerides as the man to fill Makarios’s place”.

(“The Guardian”, July 24th., 1974; p. 2).

Now all the leading personnel (with the exception of President Makarios who was told pointedly by Clerides not to return “at present”) professed themselves happy with the way things had gone. Rauf Denktash (who had succeeded Kutchuk as Turkish Cypriot Vice-President in February 1973) was happy with the new “President”, of Cyprus and with the new Greek government. The Turkish government was happy with Clerides as well as with the new regime in Athens.

THE “DEMOCRATIC” FACADE HAD BEEN ERECTED OVER MILITARY COUP AND MILITARY INVASION WITHIN TWENTY-FOUR HOURS. NOW EVERYTHING WAS READY FOR THE “PEACE CONFERENCE”.

The “Peace Conference”

On July 30th., 1974 the Tripartite Conference on Cyprus between representatives of the British, Greek and Turkish governments opened in Geneva. Its first act was to agree that Turkish troops could stay in Cyprus “for the time being” and to create a buffer zone between the Turkish-occupied area and the rest of the island.

According to the present time-table the Tripartite Conference will convene on August 8th. to draw up a revised “Constitution” for Cyprus to fulfill the requirements of the now situation in the country”. Then the representatives of the Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot comprador bourgeoisies Clerides and Denktash will be brought in and informed what has been decided.

But behind the three governments participating in the Tripartite Conference stands the directing hand of Washington:

“The supervising influence of Dr. Kissinger has never been far from the action (of the conference — Ed.)”.

(“The Guardian”. July 31st., 1974; p,l).

What, then are the aims of the United States imperialists with regard to Cyprus?

THESE AIMS ARE TO BRING ABOUT THE EFFECTIVE PARTITION OF CYPRUS INTO AREAS DOMINATED RESPECTIVELY BY GREECE AND TURKEY, SO BRINGING THIS STRATEGIC ISLAND WITHIN THE ORBIT OF THE US-DOMINATED NATO BLOC, OF WHICH BOTH GREECE AND TURKEY ARE MEMBERS:

“Support for partition has come chiefly from Washington and Athens, where there was dismay at the course an independent Cyprus steered under Archbishop Makarios. Partition would eliminate a neutralist regime, noted, for its openness to the Soviet Union, and bring two NATO powers directly on to the island”.

(“The Guardian”, July 23rd., 1974; p. 3).

But the actual legal partition of the island between two foreign powers “Double Enosis” — would be a little too much at variance with repeated United Nations resolutions calling for the maintenance of the independence of Cyprus. It is, therefore, planned to disguise this partition under the euphemism of “federalism“‘.

THE EFFECTIVE PARTITION OF CYPRUS — SO IT IS PLANNED IN WASHINGTON — WILL BE BROUGHT ABOUT BY GIVING LEGAL SUBSTANCE TO THE PRESENT DIVISION OF CYPRUS INTO TWO SEPARATE SEMI-STATES;

CONTROLLED RESPECTIVELY: BY REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PRO-IMPERIALIST GREEK CYPRIOT AND TURKISH CYPRIOT COMPRADOR BOURGEOISIES.

A massive transfer of population will then be encouraged between the two semi-states.

OVER THESE TWO SEMI-STATES WILL — ACCORDING TO THE PLAN — BE SET UP AN “INDEPENDENT” FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, A GOVERNMENT WITHOUT EVEN THE POWERS OF THE MAKARIOS GOVERNMENT – A GOVERNMENT EXISTING ONLY TO CONCEAL THE REALITY OF PARTITION WITH THE MASK OF “FEDERALISM”.

The overall aim of the US imperialists was clearly exposed to a correspondent of “The Guardian” by Barbara Lyssarides the wife of Vassos Lyssarides, leader of another political parry representing the interests of the Cypriot national bourgeoisie, the Democratic Centre Union Party (EDEK):

“The events of the past week are the result of a plan to which Turkey, Greece and the EOKA-B are all party. Its aim is the partition of Cyprus and the formation of two strong local governments, one Turkish, the other Greek, with a weak, token, central government”.

(“The Guardian”, July 23rd., 1974; p. 3)

And by July 20th. the capitalist press was presenting “federation” as the “common sense” solution to “the problem of Cyprus”:

“We may in the end arrive at a modest federal structure for Cyprus with Turkish police and Turkish local government officials superintending specifically Turkish areas. Now, given a Turkish outlet to the sea it is no more than common sense”.

(Editorial, “The Guardian”, July 29th., 1974; p. 10).

And the whole sordid plot was summed up in a succinct paragraph in the “Morning Star”:

“The NATO Council in Brussels yesterday welcomed the Cyprus agreement and in Cyprus Acting President Mr. Glafkos Clerides and Turkish Cypriot leader Mr. Rauf Denktash both said they would accept, a federal system”.

(“Morning Star”, August lst., 1974; p.3).

Of course, if the plan for the carve-up of Cyprus is carried through successfuly, it will not end, but rather stimulate, the struggle of the Cypriot people for their national liberation — a struggle with which progressives in all countries must act in solidarity.

But even genuine national liberation will not solve the social problems of the Cypriot working people.

AN URGENT NEED OF THE CYPRIOT WORKERS AND PEASANTS IS A MARXIST- LENINIST PARTY OF THE WORKING CLASS, A REVOLUTIONARY PARTY UNDER THE LEADERSHIP OF WHICH THE WORKING CLASS MAY TAKE THE LEADING ROLE IN THE NATIONAL-DEMOCRATIC REVOLUTION AND TRANSFORM IT INTO A SOCIALIST REVOLUTION.

A publication of THE MARXIST-LENINIST ORGANISATION OF BRITAIN.

Originally listed as ” Printed and published by: M.Baker, Camberwell, London”.

Source

The Communist League: The Soviet Union and the Spanish Civil War

no-pasaran-ugt

‘Non-Intervention’? Between ourselves, it’s the same thing as profitable intervention – but profitable only for the other side’.

Charles-Maurice Talleyrand (1754-1838)

INTRODUCTION

In January 1996, the Association of Communist Workers and the Association of Indian Communists held an extremely interesting meeting in the Conway Hall, London, devoted to exposing the slanderous misrepresentation of the Republican forces in the Spanish Civil War presented in Ken Leaches recent film ‘Land and Freedom’.

The main speaker was Bill Alexander, author of ‘British Volunteers for Liberty’. Bill Alexander himself fought in the British section of the International Brigade and movingly and eloquently disposed of Leaches attempt to whitewash the near-trotskyist ‘Party of Marxist Unification’.

In particular, Bill Alexander paid tribute to Stalin’s policy of military aid to the Republican forces and characterised the policy of ‘non intervention’ pursued by the European imperialist powers as the principal cause of the Republic’s defeat.

This stimulated a member of the audience to point out that the Soviet government participated in the Non-Intervention Agreement, and to ask if this indicated some duality in Soviet foreign policy, perhaps between rival groups in the leadership of Communist Party of the Soviet Union — one pursuing a Marxist-Leninist policy and one not.

Ella Rule replied front the platform that she felt that there was no duality in Soviet policy on Spain, since the Soviet policy of non-intervention was not simultaneous with, but succeeded by the Soviet policy of military aid to the Republican government.

While respecting Ella’s long-standing defence both of the Soviet Union and of the Spanish Republic, we do not believe that her theory on Soviet policy on Spain can be reconciled with known facts.

THE OUTBREAK OF THE CIVIL WAR

In January 1936, a number of ostensibly left-wing Spanish parties and organisations created an electoral bloc called the ‘Popular Front’. This adopted

“… a liberal programme set in a bourgeois framework and deliberately excluded Socialist demands”.

(Pierre Broué & Emile Témime: ‘The Revolution and the Civil War in Spain’; London; 1972; p.76).

At elections in February 1936, the Popular Front gained an overwhelming majority of deputies –

“… 277, as against 132 from the Right and 32 from the Centre”.

(Pierre Broué & Emile Témime: ibid.; p.77).

Despite the moderate nature of the Popular Front’s programme, it was unacceptable to the Spanish aristocracy, and in July 1936

“… a revolt against the Spanish Republic broke out in many military garrisons in Spanish Morocco. From thence the revolt spread rapidly throughout Spain…

The rebel forces… were led by General Franco.”

(‘Keesing’s Contemporary Archives’, Volume 2; pp.2199, 2290).

The rebel military junta

“… had at their disposal the greater part of the armed forces of the country… They had also … the promise of Italian and German tanks and aeroplanes if necessary. Against these the Government had only the Republican Assault Guards and a small and badly armed air force”.

(Gerald Brenan: ‘The Spanish Labyrinth: An Account of the Social and Political Background of the Civil War’; Cambridge; 1971; p.316).

THE ATTITUDE OF THE WESTERN IMPERIALIST POWERS

The attitude of the British imperialist government was made clear at the very beginning of the civil war. It was to deny, on 31 July 1936, the legitimate Spanish government its traditional right under international law to purchase arms to defend itself. This action was disguised as

“… an arms embargo against both sides”.

(Robert H. Whealey: Foreign Intervention in the Spanish Civil War’, in: Raymond Carr (Ed.): ‘The Republic and the Civil War in Spain’: London; 1971; p.213).

But since Spain’s neighbour, France, also had a Popular Front government

“… the only other Popular Front regime in Europe” –

(‘New Encyclopaedia Britannica’, Volume 19; Chicago; 1994; p.520).

On 20 July 1936 the Spanish government

“… asked France . . . for 20 planes. Minister of Air Pierre Cot and Premier Léon Blum … agreed”.

(Robert H. Whealey: op.cit.; p.213).

“In 1935, the Spanish government had signed a trade agreement with France. One of the clauses stipulated that in case of need the Spanish Government could not purchase arms from any country other than France. With this agreement in its hand, the Republican government appealed to the French for the arms and equipment needed to protect the nation from aggression”.

(Dolores Ibarruri: ‘They shall not pass: The Autobiography of La Pasionaria’; London; 1960; pp.201-202).

However, the sympathies of the British imperialist government, headed by Stanley Baldwin, lay with the Spanish rebels, and

“… at the beginning of August (1936– Ed.) M. Léon Blum was informed (by London — Ed.) that the guarantee given by Great Britain to maintain the frontiers of France would not remain valid in the event of independent French action beyond the Pyranees”.

(André Géraud (‘Pertinax’): Preface to: Eleuthère N. Dzelepy: ‘The Spanish Plot’; London; 1937; p.viii).

“The British warning, as we knew at the time was conveyed to M. Yvon Delbos,. the French Minister of Foreign Affairs, in the course of a visit by Sir George Clerk, British Ambassador to Paris. Sir George is understood to have said that, if France should find herself in conflict with Germany as a result of having sold war material to the Spanish Government,. England would consider herself released from her obligations under the Locarno Pact and would not come to help”.

(Julio Alvarez del Vayo: ‘Freedom’s Battle’: London; 1937; pp.69-70).

In other words, if France were to give military assistance to the Spanish Government, its defensive alliance with Britain would be declared null and void.

Thus, according to Blum’s testimony to the French Chamber of Deputies in July 1947,

“… after visiting London on 22-23 July, Blunt was forced to reverse his decision to aid the Republic”.

(Robert H. Whealey: op.cit.; p.220).

So, on 25 July 1936,

“… the Blum government issued a decree forbidding the export of arms from France to Spain”.

(Ivan Naisky: ‘Spanish Notebooks’; London; 1966; p.29).

“The refusal of the French Government to hand over to the Republic the arms that had long ago been ordered and paid for was a veritable stab in the back for Spanish democracy”.

(‘International Solidarity with the Spanish Republic: 1936-1939′ (hereafter listed as ‘International Solidarity’; Moscow; 1976; p.362).

The United States imperialist government applied the 1935 Neutrality Act to the Spanish Civil War, but US corporations exported large quantities of much-needed oil to the rebels, this being exempted from its provisions:

“United States neutrality… favoured Franco, since American companies took advantage of the Neutrality Act’s failure to classify oil as a war material and began sending tankers to Lisbon on 18 July”.

(David Mitchell: ‘The Spanish Civil War’; London; 1982; p.70).

On the other hand, like Britain and France, the USA

“… refused to sell arms to the Republic”. (Harry Browne: ‘Spain’s Civil War’; Harlow; 1983; p.38).

But the arms embargo did non affect both sides in the civil war equally, since the rebels were in receipt of large supplies of arms from Germany, Italy and (to a lesser extent) Portugal:

“The Nationalists enjoyed the advantage of… military supplies from Italy and Germany. These played a crucial role in the Nationalist victory, especially at the end of July (1936 — Ed.,) when German and Italian aircraft facilitated the ferrying of the Army of Africa to Spain, thus allowing the Nationalists to sweep through Andaluzia and Estremadura.

(Gerald N. D. Howat (Ed.): ‘Dictionary of World History’. London; 1973; p.1,421).

On the other hand,

“… the fascist government of Italy and the Nazis met no obstacles in sending arms… to the assistance of the rebel generals”.

(Luigi Longo: ‘An Important Stage in the People’s Struggle against Fascism’, in: ‘International Solidarity ; op.cit.; p.11).

“While the legitimate government was being denied the right to purchase any type of arms, the insurgents were receiving all they needed from Germany and Italy”. (Dolores Ibarruri: op.cit.; p.202).

Furthermore,

“… the strongly pro-rebel government in Lisbon was not only supplying material but permitting transhipment of German and Italian supplies across its country”

(David T. Cattell: ‘Soviet Diplomacy and the Spanish Civil War’ (hereafter listed as ‘David T. Cattell (1957)’; Berkeley (USA); 1957; p.21).

As Australian-born author and translator Gilbert Murray said in a letter to the ‘Times’ in October 1936:

“The professedly double-edged embargo really cuts only one way. It keeps the Government forces unarmed for the benefit of the well-armed rebels”.

(Gilbert Murray: Letter to the ‘Times’ (22 October 1936): p.12).

SOVIET HUMANITARIAN AID TO THE SPANISH PEOPLE

From the beginning of the Spanish Civil War, both the Comintern and the Soviet Union organised extensive humanitarian aid to the Spanish people.

On the outbreak of the civil war, the decision was taken

“… to give financial aid to the republicans through the trades unions…

All public statements at this time about shipments from the USSR to Spain emphasised that they consisted of food and other supplies for the civilian population”.

(Edward H. Carr: ‘The Comintern and the Spanish Civil War1; London; 1984; p.16, 24).

By 6 August 1936,

“… there were already 12.1 million roubles in the open current account of the All-Union Central Council of Trade Unions Fund of Aid to Republican Spain, and by the end of October this sum had risen to 47.6 million roubles.

Food and clothing were purchased and sent to Spain with the money collected by Soviet people…

In December (1938 – Ed.) . . . the trade unions and other organisations had raised another 14 million roubles”.

(‘International Solidarity’; op.cit.; p.301-303).

Soviet and Comintern relief for Spain

“… consisting of food and clothing for women and children, started at the very beginning of the Civil War. In every city and town in the Soviet Union meetings were held during the first weeks of the rebellion to demonstrate solidarity with the Spanish people”.

(David T. Cattell: ‘Communism and the Spanish Civil War’ (hereafter listed as ‘David T. Cattell (1955)’; Berkeley (USA): 1955; p.70).

In addition to organisations linked with the Comintern, a

“… new network of organisations solely for the support of Spain… A typical organisation was the ‘International Committee for Aid to the Spanish People’ in Paris which, between August 1936 and June 1938 collected over half a million dollars”.

(David T. Cattell (1955): ibid.; p.71).

THE QUESTION OF SOVIET MILITARY ASSISTANCE TO SPAIN

On the question of whether the Comintern and the Soviet government should give material assistance to the war effort of the Spanish Republic, there were from the outset different views in high Soviet circles.

On this question,

“… no word came from the Soviet government or from Comintern…

The only decision taken was to give financial aid to the republicans through the trade unions”.

(Edward H. Carr: op.cit.; pp.15, 16).

and for two months the Comintern was silent on the question of the war:

“There does not appear to have been a Comintern statement on the outbreak of the Spanish civil war in July 1936″.

(Jane Degras (Ed.): ‘The Communist International: 1919-1943: Documents Volume 3; London; 1965; p.392).

“It was not until September 18 1936 that the Secretariat of ECCI… set out to define the attitude of Comintern to the Spanish War, now just two months old”.

(Edward H. Carr: op.cit.; p.20).

NON-INTERVENTION

On 1 August 1936, France addressed a Note to the British government

“… proposing that they associate themselves with the French action and strictly observe a policy of non-intervention in Spanish affairs…

On 4 August Britain returned a positive answer to the French proposal…

Then the French government addressed their proposal to other European powers”.

(Ivan Maisky: op cit.; p.29).

As Julio Alvarez del Vayo, who was Spanish Foreign Minister for most of the Civil War period, relates: the British government allowed it to be thought that the initiative for non-intervention’ came from the French Popular Front government in order to make the policy more acceptable to democratic public opinion than if it wore known to emanate front a British Tory government:

“The simple truth is that Non-Intervention was fathered in London. The legal experts in the British Foreign Office … made such efforts to attribute its paternity to a person less suspect than they of hostility to democratic principles. In M. Blum and the French Government they found the ideal sponsors for their creation. … Millions of supporters of the Popular Front in France … would certainly have raged against the plan had it been frankly labelled for what it was, the work of a British Tory Government. On the other hand, they were able to justify the plan… , in Parliament and in the country, by evoking its supposed paternity.

From that day on, the Quai d’Orsay (the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs)– Ed.), in all that referred to Spain, became a branch of the Foreign Office…

While in July 1936 France ostensibly took the initiative in proposing Non-Intervention, for the next three years she was to be denied any initiative whatever”.

(Julio Alvarez del Vayo: op. cit.; pp.68, 70).

On 23 August 1936,

“… the Soviet government adhered to the Agreement on ‘Non-Intervention’ in Spanish Affairs”

(Ivan Maisky: op.cit.; p.31).

As historian Edward Carr notes:

“Soviet acceptance, in view of the campaign in the USSR and in communist parties abroad in support of the republican government, at first sight seemed a surprising gesture”.

(Edward H. Carr: op.cit.; p.17).

The People’s Commissar for Foreign Affairs of the USSR, Maksim Litvinov, admitted to a plenary session of the League of Nations in September 1936 that the Soviet government had adhered to the ‘Non-Intervention’ Agreement solely in order to oblige the French imperialists:

“The Soviet government has associated itself with the Declaration on Non-Intervention in Spanish Affairs only because a friendly power (i.e., France — IM) feared an international conflict it we did not do so”.

(Maksim Litvinov: Speech to Plenary Session of League of Nations (28 September 1936), in: Ivan Maisky: op.cit.; p.31).

THE ‘NON-INTERVENTION COMMITTEE’

On 26 August 1936 the French government put forward a new proposal;

“… the creation in London of a permanent Committee of representatives of all the participating countries, the main aim of the Committee being supervision of the exact observance of the Agreement by the powers which had signed it”.

(Ivan Maisky: ibid.; p.29).

The Non-Intervention Committee’ functioned on

“… the unanimity principle’, (Ivan Maisky: ibid.; p 36).

the Soviet delegate — and every other — having the right of veto over all decisions.

All the European powers adhered to the ‘Non-Intervention Committee’ –officially called the ‘Committee for Non-Intervention in the Internal Affairs of Spain’ — except for

“… Spain, as the country around which the ‘quarantine of non-intervention’ was to be established, and Switzerland, which refused to participate”

(Ivan Maisky: ibid.; p.30).

On 28 August 1936, an order was issued by the Soviet

“… People’s Commissar of Foreign Trade prohibiting the export of war supplies to Spain”.

(Max Beloff: ‘The Foreign Policy of Soviet Russia: 1929-1942′, Volume 2: ’1936-1941′; London; 1949; p.32).

On 9 September 1936, the Non-Intervention Committee had

“… its first meeting, and agreed that it should have a permanent Chairman. This post was offered to the British representative, Lord Plymouth”.

(Ivan Maisky: op.cit.; pp.30-31).

THE TRUE ROLE OF ‘NON-INTERVENTION’

The Non-Intervention Agreement

“… deprived states of the legal right to give aid to the legitimate government of Spain”.

(David T. Cattell (1957); op.cit.: p.15).

denying

“… the Spanish government the traditional right of buying arms to defend itself against domestic treason”.

(Harry Browne: op.cit.; p.37).

Although Germany. Italy and Portugal had signed the ‘Non-Intervention Pact’, they had not the slightest intention of adhering to its provisions, but continued to supply arms in large quantities to the Spanish rebels. Thus the real role of the Non-Intervention Agreement’ was to provide a screen behind which the Fascist powers could arm the rebels.

‘Non-Intervention’ was a farce which assisted the Fascist powers in their war against the Spanish Republic:

‘While the legitimate government was being denied the right to purchase any type of arms, the insurgents were receiving all they needed from Germany and Italy”

(Dolores Ibarruri: op.cit.; p.202).

“When the war ended, the Non-Intervention Pact had leaked copiously — and overwhelmingly in Franco’s direction”.

(David Mitchell: op.cit.; p.72).

“Throughout September 1936, while the flow of arms and equipment to the Nationalists from Italy and Germany steadily increased, the ban on shipments from . . . the USSR to Republican Spain remained effective”.

(Edward H. Carr: op.cit.; p.23).

“The policy of non-intervention ended by developing into a veritable blockade and an effective intervention in favour of the rebels”. (Eleuthère N. Dzelepy: op.cit.; p.77)

“Non-Intervention became one of the greatest farces of our time”.

(Julio Alvarez del Vayo: op.cit.; p.50).

“The so-called policy of non-intervention… in effect meant aiding and abetting the aggressor”.

(Dolores Ibarruri: ‘The Fight goes on’ in: ‘International Solidarity’; op.cit.; p.7).

“Non-intervention… contributed to the victory of fascism in Spain”.

(‘Great Soviet Encyclopaedia’, Volume 31; New York; 1972; p.176).

The true role of ‘Non-Intervention’ was admitted by Maksim Litvinov , who was People’s Commissar for Foreign Affairs between 1930 and 1939:

“If the Non-Intervention Committee had anything to boast of, it was that it had genuinely interfered with the supplies for the legitimate Republican army and with the provision of food for the civil population in the territory occupied by the latter”.

(Maksim Litvinov: Speech at Political Committee of League of Nations (29 September 1938), in: William P.& Zelda Coates: ‘A History of Anglo-Soviet Relations’; London: 1943; p.569).

and by the German Ambassador to Britain, Joachim von Ribbentropp, who declared that the ‘Non-Intervention Committee’

“… might have been better called the Intervention Committee”.

(Joachim von Rippentropp, cited in: David Mitchell: op.cit.; p.71).

Stalin, in his report to the 18th Congress of the CPSU in March 1939, put the matter even more strongly — implying that ‘Non-Intervention’ was immoral and treacherous:

“Actually speaking, the policy of non-intervention means conniving at aggression, giving free rein to war and, consequently, transforming the war into a world war. The policy of non-intervention reveals an eagerness, a desire, not to hinder the aggressors in their nefarious work…

Far be it from me to moralise on the policy of non-intervention, to talk of treason, treachery and so on. It would be naive to preach morals to people who recognise no human morality”.

(Josef V. Stalin: Report on the Work of the Central Committee to the 18th Congress of the CPSU (B) (March 1939), in: ‘Works’, Volume 14; London; 1978; pp.365, 368).

THE CAMPAIGN AGAINST ‘NON-INTERVENTION’

As the true character of ‘Non-Intervention’ became increasingly clear, outspoken opposition to it arose in democratic and anti-fascist circles. This opposition was reflected in circles normally supportive of Soviet policy:

“The strict neutrality adopted by Moscow in the Spanish struggle was giving rise to embarrassing questions even in the friendliest quarters”

(Walter C. Krivitsky: ‘I was Stalin’s Agent’; London; 1939; p.101).

These circles included sections of the international communist movement, particularly in France. For example, headlines in L’Humanité, (Humanity), organ of the Communist Party of France, in September 1936 read:

“GUNS! PLANES!

END THE BLOCKADE WHICH IS KILLING OUR BROTHERS IN SPAIN”.

(‘L’Humanité’, 5 September 1936; p.1).

“FOR REPUBLICAN SPAIN.

FOR PEACE AND THE SECURITY OF FRANCE”.

(‘L’Humanité’, 7 September 1936; p.4).

“TO THE AID OF THE REPUBLICAN FIGHTERS OF SPAIN”.

(‘L’Humanité’, 14 September 1936; p.4).

“IT IS NECESSARY TO RECONSIDER THE PRINCIPLE OF NON-INTERVENTION”

(‘L’Humanité’, 20 September 1936; p.4).

“THE VOICE OF THE PEOPLE OF FRANCE RISES EVER MORE STRONGLY FOR THE LIFTING OF THE BLOCKADE”..

(‘L’Humanité’, 21 September 1936; p.4).

Maurice Thorez, General Secretary of the Communist Party of France, wrote in ‘L’Humanité’:

“For the honour of the working class, for the honour of the Popular Front, for the honour of France, the blockade that is killing our Spanish brethren and that is killing peace must be lifted”.

(Maurice Thorez, in: ‘L’Humanité’ (9 September 1936), in: David T. Cattell (1957): op.cit.; p.24).

In August 1836, Paul Nizan wrote in the Comintern journal, ‘International Press Correspondence’

“This ‘neutrality’… is definitely to be challenged from the point of view of international justice…

While the government in Madrid is being actually affected by real sanctions, the rebels and the rebel government… have every sort of supply they can wish for at their disposal.

The actual blockade of Republican Spain must be raised at once. . .

The Communists will take the lead in this fight for the support of the

Spanish people”.

(Paul Nizan: ‘To the Aid of the Spanish Republic!’. in: ‘International Press Correspondence’, Volume 16, No. 37 (15 August 1936); p.990).

In a speech during the first week in September 1936, interrupted by shouts of ‘Aeroplanes for Spain’, French Prime Minister Léon Blum countered the campaign against ‘Non-Intervention’ by the reminder that the policy was supported by the Soviet government:

“Do not let us forget that the international convention of non-intervention in Spain bears the signature of Soviet Russia.” (Léon Blum: Statement, in: David T. Cattell (1957): op.cit.; p.24).

THE DIVISION IN THE CPSU

The campaign against ‘Non-Intervention’ was reflected within the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. From early in the civil war, a rift was observable in the higher circles of the CPSU between those who stood for the furnishing of arms to the Spanish Republic — that is, the Marxist-Leninists and genuine anti-fascists — on the one hand, and those who stood for collaboration with the Western imperialist powers in the policy of ‘Non-Intervention’ on the other hand.

Lieutenant-Colonel Simon, the French military attaché in Moscow, reported to the French Minister of National Defence Edouard Daladier in August 1936, the existence of two rival factions in the leadership of the CPSU.

“The moderate faction . . . would wish to avoid all intervention.

The extremist faction on the other hand, considers that the USSR should not remain neutral but should support the legal government”.

(Lt.-Col. Simon: Letter to Edouard Daladier (13 August 1936). in: ‘Documents diplomatiques français: 1932-1939′, 2nd Series (1936-1939). Volume 3; Paris; 1966; p.208).

“Influential circles in the Russian Party, like most Leftists in Western countries, pressed for support for the Spanish republic. But this pressure was, for the time being, subject to the restraint of diplomatic expediency”. (Edward H. Carr: op.cit.; p.15).

“In foreign affairs, fundamentalist Bolsheviks tended to dislike Maksim Litvinov’s conciliatory approach to the West…

The Soviet press was hostile to the whole idea of Non-Intervention”

(Michael Alpert:: ‘A New International History of the Spanish Civil War’; Basingstoke; 1994; pp.50, 51).

THE CHANGE OF SOVIET POLICY TOWARDS SPAIN

As a result of the democratic pressure instanced above, the Marxist-Leninists in the leadership of the CPSU were able to bring about a fundamental change in Soviet policy towards the supply of arms to the Spanish Republic.

On 7 October 1936, Samual Kagan, Counsellor at the Soviet Embassy in London (who was Acting Soviet Representative on the Non-Intervention Committee) presented Lord Plymouth with a list of violations of the Non-Intervention Agreement and concluded with an ultimatum

“… that unless violations of the Agreement on Non-Intervention cease forthwith, it (the Soviet government — Ed.) will consider itself as freed from the obligations arising from the Agreement”.

(Samuel B. Kagan: Statement of 7 October 1936, in: Ivan Maisky: op. cit.; p.47).

On 15 October 1936, Stalin sent a telegram to José Diaz, leader of the Communist Party of Spain, saying:

“The workers of the Soviet Union are merely carrying out their duty in giving help within their power to the revolutionary masses of Spain. They are aware that the liberation of Spain from the yoke of fascist reactionaries is not a private affair of the Spanish people but the common cause of the whole of advanced and progressive mankind”.

(Josef V. Stalin: Telegram to CC, CPSp (15 October 1936), in: ‘Works’, Volume 14; London; 1978; p.149).

On 23 October 1936, Soviet Ambassador to Britain Ivan Maisky, who had now taken over as Soviet representative on the ‘Non-Intervention Committee’, sent a further statement to Lord Plymouth, saying:

“The Agreement has turned out to be an empty, torn scrap of paper. It has ceased in practice to exist. Not wishing to remain in the position of persons unwittingly assisting an unjust cause, the Government of the Soviet Union . cannot consider itself bound by the Agreement for Non-Intervention to any greater extent than any of the remaining participants of the Agreement”.

(Ivan Maisky; Statement of 23 October 1936, in; Ivan Naisky: op.cit.; p.48-49).

On 27 August 1936, Marcel Rozenberg arrived in Madrid as the first Soviet Ambassador to Spain

“… with an impressive retinue of military, naval and air attachés and experts

(Edward H. Carr; op.cit,; p.22).

SOVIET MILITARY AID TO THE SPANISH REPUBLIC

The defector Walter Krivitsky, who was at the time Chief of Soviet Military Intelligence in Europe, states that

“… the first communication from Moscow about Spain reached him on September 2″,

(Edward H. Carr: op.cit.; p.24).

and that it stated:

“Extend your operations immediately to cover Spanish Civil War. Mobilise all available agents and facilities for prompt creation of a system to purchase and transport arms to Spain”.

(Walter H. Krivitsky: op.cit.; p.100).

Within days,

“… an apparatus based upon Arms Purchase Commissions in European capitals and supervised by the NKVD (the People’s Commissariat for Internal Affairs — Ed.) . . was set up to organise the purchase of arms”

(Harry Browne: op.cit.; p.38).

“The first appearance of Soviet tanks and planes in the defence of Madrid late in October (1936– Ed.) and early in November made a tremendous Impression”.

(David Mitchell: op.cit.; p.63).

During the war:

“… the sending of military aid was never acknowledged…

No official Communist publication ever mentioned the sending of military equipment”.

(David T. Cattell (1955): op.cit.; p.72).

However,

“… the Soviet Union sent to the Spanish Government 806 military aircraft, mainly fighters, 362 tanks, 120 armoured cars, 1,555 artillery pieces, about 500,000 rifles, 340 grenade launchers, 15,113 machine-guns, more than 110,000 aerial bombs, about 3.4 million rounds of ammunition, 500,000 grenades, 862 million cartridges, 1,500 tons of gunpowder, torpedo boats, air defence searchlight installations, motor vehicles, radio stations, torpedoes and fuel”.

(‘International Solidarity’; op.cit.; p.329-30).

and under the new Soviet policy,

“… a little more than 2,000 Soviet volunteers fought and worked in Spain on the side of the Republic throughout the whole war, including 772 airmen, 351 tank men, 222 army advisers and instructors, 77 naval specialists, 100 artillery specialists, 52 other specialists, 130 aircraft factory workers and engineers, 156 radio operators and other signals men, and 204 interpreters”.

(‘International Solidarity’: op.cit.; p.328).

THE INTERNATIONAL BRIGADES

In September 1936,

“… the Secretariat of the Executive Committee of the Communist International took a decision to organise the recruitment of men with military experience”.

(Bill Alexander: ‘British Volunteers for Liberty: Spain 1936-1939′; London: 1982; p.53).

and the Spanish Republican Government

“… agreed, on 12 October 1936, to the formation of the International Brigades’1.

(Bill Alexander: ibid.: p.53).

On 17 October 1936,

“… the first recruits to the International Brigades arrived in Spain”.

(David Mitchell: op.cit.; p.63).

The International Brigades

“… formed a corps d’elite involved in all fighting of any importance until the end of 1938″.

(Pierre Broué & Emile Témime: op.cit.; p.375).

The total number of foreigners

“… who fought for the Spanish Republic was probably about 40,000, about 35,000 being in the International Brigades”.

(Hugh Thomas: ‘The Spanish Civil War’; London; 1977; p.982).

According to Dimitri Manuilsky at the 18th Congress of the CPSU, Spanish resistance

“… was made possible by the international support given to the Spanish people by the working people and above all the political support given them by the nations of the Soviet Union and by the father of all working people — Comrade Stalin”.

(Dimitri Manuilsky: Report on the Delegation of the CPSU (B) in the ECCI to the 18th Congress of the CPSU (b) (March 1939), in: ‘The Land of Socialism Today and Tomorrow ; Moscow; 1939; p.71).

THE SOVIET UNION AND SPAIN AFTER SEPTEMBER 1936

To sum up, in September 1936 the Soviet government reversed its previous policy and began to supply much needed military assistance to the Spanish Republic.

It might, therefore. seem at first glance as though the thesis presented at the January 1996 meeting by Ella Rule (p.1) — that there was no duality in Soviet foreign policy at the time of the Spanish civil war, since the Soviet policy of ‘non-intervention’ was succeeded by the Soviet policy of military aid to the Republican government — had validity.

Indeed, some well-known revisionists, like Dolores Ibarruri, assert precisely this:

“When the Soviet Union saw that in practice the Non-Intervention Committee was a cover for activities of the fascist and ‘democratic’ powers in favour of the insurgents, the Soviet Union declared on October 7 1937 (clearly an error for 1936 — Ed.) that it would withdraw its participation in the Non-Intervention Committee”. (Dolores Ibarruri: op.cit.; p.263).

But in fact, even after it had begun to supply military equipment to the Republican government, the Soviet Union did not withdraw from the ‘Non-Intervention Committee’. On the contrary,

“The Soviet Union did not make a move to leave the committee’1.

(David T. Cattell (1957): op.cit.; p.50).

“The USSR participated in the Agreement on ‘Non-Intervention’ and in the Committee for the same almost until they ceased to exist”.

(Ivan Maisky; op.cit.; p.32).

To be exact, only on 4 March 1939 did the TASS news agency announce the Soviet Union’s withdrawal from the ‘Non-Intervention Committee’:

“The Council of People’s Commissars of the USSR decided on 1 March of

this year to recall its representatives from the Committee for ‘Non-Intervention’”

(TASS News Agency: Statement (4 March 1939), in: Ivan Maisky: ibid.; p. 202).

This was a few days after the British and French governments had officially recognised the rebel government:

“On 27 February 1939 Britain and France officially recognised Franco and broke off diplomatic relations with the Republican government (Ivan Maisky: ibid.; p.199).

and only a few weeks before the ‘Non-Intervention Committee’ was dissolved:

“On 20 April 1939 the Committee as a whole officially ceased to be”.

(Ivan Maisky: ibid.; p.203).

A leading role in the decision to remain in the Non-Intervention Committee, and to ‘work closely’ on it with the British and French imperialists, was played by the Soviet People’s Commissar for Foreign Affairs. Maksim Litvinov:

“The Soviet Union’s new policy generally took the form of working closely with France and England on the committee. It is believed that Litvinov was able to persuade the … rasher elements among the Soviet leaders and remain”.

(David T. Cattell (1957): op.cit.; p.50).

In other words, in the situation existing in the Soviet Union in 1936-39, the Marxist-Leninist forces were able to reverse Soviet policy on the supply of arms to the Spanish Republic, but not strong enough to carry this reversal through to its logical conclusion by repudiating the whole concept of ‘non-intervention’.

THE EFFECT OF CONTINUED SOVIET PARTICIPATION IN ‘NON~INTERVENTION’

The effect of the continued participation of the Soviet Union in the ‘Non-Intervention Committee’ was to continue to lend Soviet prestige to the false view that it was capable of playing a progressive role.

Over the next months, the ‘Non-Intervention Committee’ was able to carry through policies which would, without doubt, have been vociferously rejected by progressive opinion had it not been for the screen of Soviet support around them.

Firstly, they were able to sabotage the control plan which was ostensibly designed to make the paper arms embargo internationally effective.

From the very outset of the civil war, the Soviet Union refused to take part in the international naval patrols around Spain, preferring to ‘entrust this to the imperialist powers — Britain and France. As Litvinov said in a speech on 14 September 1937:

“I recall that at the very beginning of the Spanish conflict the Soviet Government proposed that naval control be entrusted to England and France alone, and that it consequently voluntarily renounced the right… to send its naval vessels into the Mediterranean to take part in the control”.

(Maksim Litvinov: Speech of 14 September 1937, in: Jane Degras (Ed.): ‘Soviet Documents on Foreign Policy’, Volume 3 (hereafter listed as ‘Jane Degras (Ed.) (1953)’); London; 1953; p.254).

As a result,

“… the coming into force of control during the night of 19-20 April 1937 swiftly demonstrated the futility of this policy”. (Pierre Broué & Emile Témime: op.cit.; p.342).

Even Litvinov admitted in an election speech on 27 November 1937:

“Control is established on the frontiers and coasts of Spain, but the control immediately springs a leak and whole divisions and army corps, with proportionate military equipment, penetrate to the Spanish mutineers1′.

(Maksim Litvinov: Election Speech of 27 November 1937, in: Jane Degras (Ed.) (1953): ibid.; p.267).

And on 17 September 1937, the British and French governments

“… informed the other 25 ‘Non-Intervention’ Powers . . . that they had decided to discontinue their naval patrols of the Spanish coast”.

(‘Keesing’s Contemporary Archives’, Volume 3; p.2,744).

Secondly, they were able to halt the influx of volunteers to the International Brigades which played such an important role in the anti-fascist resistance.

On 4 December 1936,

“… the Soviet government came forward with a new, extremely important initiative”.

(Ivan Maisky: ibid.; p.97).

This proposal was

“… that the Governments, parties to the Non-Intervention Agreement, shall undertake to prevent by every means the despatch and transit of volunteers to Spain”, (lvan Maisky: Letter to Non-Intervention Committee (4 December 1936), in: ibid.; 1). 97).

On 10 January 1937, the British Foreign Office declared that

“… the provisions of the Foreign Enlistment Act 1870 … are applicable in the case of the present conflict in Spain”, (‘Keesing’s Contemporary Archives’, Volume 3; p.2,411).

so that

“… it is … an offence for any British subject to accept or agree to accept any commission or engagement in the military, naval or air service of either party in the present conflict”. (‘Keesing’s Contemporary Archives’, Volume 3; p.2,411).

On 16 February 1937, the Non-Intervention Committee decided

“… to prohibit the passage to Spain of any ‘volunteers’ whatsoever as from 21 February 1937″

(Ivan Maisky: op.cit.; ibid.; p.106).

On 18 February 1937 the French government issued a decree

“… to forbid the recruiting of volunteers for Spain and their transport thither”.

(‘Keesing’s Contemporary Archives’, Volume 3; p.2,463).

and on 20 February 1937 the Soviet government issued a decree stating:

“1. Citizens of the USSR are forbidden entrance into Spain to participate in the military activities underway in Spain’.

2. Recruiting of persons for participation in the military activities in Spain… is forbidden in the territory of the USSR”

(USSR Decree of 20 February 1937, in: Jane Degras (Ed.) (1953): op.cit.; p.234-35).

Thirdly, they were able to bring about the repatriation of volunteer fighters already serving in the International Brigades.

At a meeting of the Sub-Committee of the Non-Intervention Committee on 23 March 1937, Maisky declared:

“There is nothing more pressing and important for us at the present time than the evacuation from Spain of the so-called ‘volunteers’” (lvan Maisky: op.cit.; p.125).

and was not deterred when the Italian delegate, Dino Grandi, who had

“… only just agreed to… the evacuation of foreign combatants from the Pyrenean peninsula”,

(Ivan Maisky: ibid.; p.125-26).

boasted

“Not one single Italian volunteer will leave Spain until Franco is victorious”.

(Dino Grandi: Statement at Sub-Committee of ‘Non-Intervention Committee’ (23 March 1937). in: Ivan Maisky: ibid.; p.125).

On 14 July 1937, a new British plan was laid before the Committee. It included

“… the evacuation of all foreign combatants from Spain”.

(Ivan Maisky: ibid.; p.158).

on 31 July 1937, a TASS communiqué stated:

“The Soviet Government considers that all foreigners… taking part in one way in military operations should be withdrawn from Spain. The Soviet Government is ready to co-operate in accomplishing this by all the means at its disposal”.

(TASS Communiqué (31 July 1937). in: Jane Degras (Ed.) (1953): op.cit. p.249).

on 5 July 1938, at a plenary meeting of the ‘Non-Intervention Committee’

“… the British plan for the withdrawal of foreign volunteers from Spain was unanimously adopted”.

(‘Keesing’s Contemporary Archives’, Volume 3; p.3,735).

Although Franco later — on 30 December 1938– rejected the plan, (‘Keesing’s Contemporary Archives’, Volume 3; p.3,384).

on 23 September 1938, Prime Minister Juan Negrin

“… announced that his Government had decided on the immediate and complete withdrawal of all non-Spanish combatants fighting on its side”.

(‘Keesing’s Contemporary Archives’, Volume 3; p.3,252).

THE DUALITY IN SOVIET POLICY TOWARDS SPAIN

The Soviet policies of military assistance to the Spanish republic and of co-operation in the work of the ‘Non-Intervention Coinmittee are contradictory and yet after September 1936 they were carried on simultaneously.

It is, therefore, clear that there was a duality in Soviet foreign policy towards Spain in this period.

This duality is explicable by the fact that, in addition to Marxist-Leninists like Stalin in the leadership of the CPSU — Marxist-Leninists who favoured military assistance to Spain — there were also revisionists, people who had departed from Marxist-Leninist principles, and who favoured co-operation with the appeasement policy of the West European powers at the expense of the Spanish Republic. The policy actually pursued by the Soviet government towards the Spanish Republic in this period was a compromise between these two opposed policies.

The most prominent Soviet politician in the second, revisionist, category was the People’s Commissar for Foreign Affairs, Maksim Litvinov.

THE ROLE OF MAKSIM LITVINOV

Introduction

Maksim Maksimovicb Litvinov was appointed Minister to Britain in January 1918:

“This appointment was officially made by Trotsky”,

(John Carswell. ‘The Exile: A Life of Ivy Litvinov’ London; 1983: p.86)

who was then People’s Commissar for Foreign Affairs.

After being Deputy People’s Commissar for Foreign Affairs in 1920-30, in July 1930 he succeeded Georgi Chicherin as People’s Commissar for Foreign Affairs, a post he held until 1939.

Litvinov’s Influence

Litvinov remoulded the Commissariat in his charge, filling it with his nominees:

“The People’s Commissariat of Foreign Affairs, as the Soviet Foreign Office was called, was an organisation largely created by Litvinov. He recruited its staff and designed its system…

The People’s Commissariat for Foreign Affairs, and many of the principal posts abroad, were already (1930 — Ed.) filled with his friends and nominees”.

(John Carswell: ibid.; p.109, 126).

Litvinov, married to an English wife, was steeped in West European culture:

“… Maksim had been soaked in the ways of the West”.

(John Carswell: ibid.; p.103).

“Maksim was the only surviving Old Bolshevik who had thoroughly assimilated Western European culture”.

(Edgar Snow: ‘Journey to the Beginning’; London; 1959; p.312).

and this was reflected politically in Litvinov’s support for cooperation with Western imperialism. He became

“… the best-known Soviet spokesman for . . . cooperation with the West”.

(Alexander Dallin: ‘Allied Leadership in the Second World War: Stalin’ in: ‘Survey’, Volume 21, Nos. 1/2 (Winter/Spring 1975); p.15).

In the period leading up to 1939, Litvinov was particularly associated with Soyiet attempts to form a ‘collective security’ alliance with the more satisfied (and so less aggressive) imperialist powers, such as Britain and France, against the less satisfied (and so more aggressive) imperialist powers, Germany, Italy and Japan:

“The Soviet Government … is prepared, as hitherto, to participate in collective action, the scope of which should have as its aim the stopping of the further development of aggression and the elimination of the increased danger of a new world slaughter”.

(Maksim Litvinov: Press Statement (17 March 1938). in: William P.& Zelda Coates: op. cit.; p 585).

He genuinely believed

“… that Soviet power and influence could best be promoted by collaboration with the West”.

(Voitech Mastny: ‘The Cassandra of the Foreign Comissariat: Maksirn Litvinov and the Cold War’, in: ‘Foreign Affairs’, Volume 54, No. 2 (January 1976); p.376).

Already, on 17 January 1938, Politburo member Andrei Zhdanov criticised the People’s Cornmissariat for Foreign Affairs for its liberal attitude towards certain imperialist powers:

“Almost every foreign power has a consul in Leningrad; and I must say that some of these consuls clearly go beyond their powers and duties and behave in an illegal fashion, engaging in activities prejudicial to the people and country to which they are accredited.

Why does the People’s Commissariat for Foreign Affairs tolerate a state of affairs in which the number of consuls representing foreign powers in the USSR is not equal to but greater than the number of consuls representing the USSR in foreign countries?

Then, comrades, … what are we to think of a situation in which the government of a country (France — Ed.) with which we, the USSR, are in fairly close relations… allows organisations to exist on its territory which plan and carry out terrorism against the USSR?”

(Andrei Zhdanov: Speech on the Work of the People’s Commissariat for Foreign Affairs (17 January 1938). in: Jane Degras (Ed.) (1953): op.cit.; p.269, 270).

and Vyacheslav Molotov, then USSR Prime Minister, added in a speech to the USSR Supreme Soviet a few days later, on 19 January 1938:

“Comrade Zhdanov’s remarks about foreign consulates …have been carefully noted by the Council of People’s Commissars, which will in the near future take all the necessary steps.

Now to our relations with France. Here again we must recognise that Comrade Zhdanov’s remarks were well founded. . . . Refuge is found on French territory for every kind of adventurist and criminal organisation, nests of vipers, of terrorists and diversionists … How does this accord with the Soviet-French pact of friendship? The People’s Commissariat for Foreign Affairs should certainly look into this”.

(Vyacheslav Molotov: Speech at USSR Supreme Soviet (19 January 1938), in: Jane Degras (Ed.) (1953): op.cit.; pp.271, 272).

As Litvinov’s wife Ivy commented later:

“At the January (1938– Ed.) session of the Supreme Soviet, Zhdanov, made disparaging remarks about the administrative work of the Commissariat for Foreign Affairs. Litvinov’s name was not mentioned, but criticism is never lightly made in the Soviet Union…

Maksim was aware that he was out of favour”.

(Ivy Litvinov: ‘To Russia with Love’, in: ‘Observer Review’ (25 July 1976); p.17).

Litvinov and the Soviet-German Non-Aggression Pact

Even in 1937 British Foreign Secretary Lord Halifax was already telling Hitler how much the British government admired his suppression of Communism in Germany:

“The great service the Fuehrer had rendered in the rebuilding of Germany were fully and completely recognised, and if British public Opinion was sometimes taking a critical attitude toward certain German problems, the reason might be in part that people in England were not fully informed of the motives and circumstances which underlie certain German measures…

The British Government were fully aware that … by destroying Communism in his country, he had barred the road to Western Europe, and that Germany therefore could rightly he regarded as a bulwark of the West against Bolshevism”.

(Lord Halifax: Record of a Conversation with Hitler (19 November 1937), in: ‘Documents and Materials relating to the Eve of the Second World War: From the Archives of the German Ministry of Foreign Affairs’, Volume 1 (hereafter listed as ‘Archives’); Moscow; 1948; pp.19-20).

and was proposing to Berlin the formation of a four-power alliance to include Britain, France, Germany and Italy:

“After the ground had been prepared by an Anglo-German understanding, the four Great West-European powers must jointly lay the foundations for lasting peace in Europe.

The Fuehrer replied that … Lord Halifax had proposed an agreement of the four Western Powers as the ultimate aim of Anglo-German Cooperation”.

(‘Archives’; ibid.; p.29-30, 31).

In other words, the British government was already proposing that

“… Britain, and France as well, should join the ‘Berlin-Rome Axis’”

(Soviet Information Bureau: ‘Falsifiers of History (Historical Information); London; 1948; p.21).

In these circumstances,

“… the Soviet Union faced the alternative:

either to accept, for purposes of self-defence, Germany’s proposal to conclude a non-aggression pact and thereby ensure to the Soviet Union a prolongation of peace for a certain period of time which might be used by the Soviet State to prepare better its forces for resistance to a possible attack on the part of the aggressor;

or to reject Germany’s proposal for a non-aggression pact and thereby permit the war provocateurs from the camp of the Western Powers immediately to involve the Soviet Union in armed conflict with Germany at a time when the situation was utterly unfavourable to the Soviet Union and when it was completely isolated.

In this situation, the Soviet Government found itself compelled to make its choice and conclude the Non-Aggression Pact with Germany”.

(Soviet Information Bureau: ‘Falsifiers of History (Historical Information); London; 1948; p.44).

Litvinov, however, was, and remained, opposed to the Soviet government’s rapprochement with Germany.

“Litvinov . . . disapproved . . . of Stalin’s planned rapprochement with Germany’”.

(Voltech Mastny: op.cit.; p.367).

He

“… never, by word or hint, approved of Stalin’s pact policy with Hitler”.

(Louis Fischer: ‘The Great Challenge’; New York; 1971; p.54).

In May 1939, Litvinov was replaced as People’s Commissar for Foreign Affairs by Vyacheslav Molotov. The change reflected the preparation for

“… a momentous change of foreign policy”,

(John Carswell: op.cit.; p.145).

for in August 1939 the Soviet government signed the Non-Aggression Pact with Germany.

It was at this time that Molotov made a more direct public criticism of ‘short-sighted’ people in the Soviet Union who ‘over-simplified anti-fascist propaganda’ and forgot about the danger from other (non-fascist) imperialist powers:

“There were short-sighted people in our country too who, tending to over-simplify anti-fascist propaganda, forgot this provocative work of our enemies”.

(Vyacheslav Molotoy: Statement in Supreme Soviet of the USSR on the Ratification of the Soviet-German Pact of Non-Aggression (August 31 1939); London; 1939; p.8).

In a biographical article on Litvinov, henry Roberts points out that Molotov’s comment

“… may be interpreted as a slap at Litvinov”.

(Henry L. Roberts: ‘Maksim Litvinov’ in: Gordon A. Craig & Felix Gilbert (Eds.): ‘The Diplomats: 1919-1939′; Princeton (USA); 1953; p.375).

The revisionist diplomat Andrei Gromyko, who was USSR Foreign Minister in a later period. writes in his memoirs about an incident in 1942:

“During Molotov’s visit to Washington in June 1942, I was struck by a conversation between him and Litvinov while the three of us were driving to the Appalachian mountains. We were talking about the French and the British, and Molotov sharply criticised their pre-war policy, which was aimed at pushing Hitler into war against the USSR. In other words, he voiced the official Party line. Litvinoy disagreed. This had been the prime reason for his removal from the post of Foreign Commissar in 1939 yet here he was, still stubbornly defending Britain’s and France’s refusal to join the Soviet Union and give Hitler a firm rebuff before he could make his fateful attack upon the USSR. Despite having been relieved of his post for such views, Litvinov continued to defend them in front of Molotov, and consequently in front of Stalin.

It was strange listening to someone who appeared not to have noticed Munich and its consequences”.

(Andrel Gromyko: ‘Memoirs’. London; 1989; p.312),

In 1948, however, the Soviet Information Bureau was still commenting politely on Litvinov’s removal:

“In the complex situation when the Fascist aggressors were preparing the Second World War, … it was necessary to have in such a responsible post as that of People’s Commissar of Foreign Affairs a political leader with greater experience and greater popularity in the country than Maksim Litvinov”.

(‘Falsifiers of History’; op.cit.; p.16-17).

Litvinov’s Further Demotion

In February 1941, Litvinov was further demoted: the step was taken

“… of depriving Maksim of the one public position he retained — membership of the Central Committee of the Communist Party”.

(John Carswell: op.cit.; p.148).

This action was taken,

“.. according to the official announcement, because of non-fulfilment of his obligations’”.

(Vojtech Mastny: op.cit.; p.367).

According to Ivy Litvinov,

“… as Stalin was leaving the meeting, Lityinov called after him ‘Does this mean that you consider me an enemy of the people?’. The boss removed the pipe from his mouth to say . . . ‘We don’t consider you to be an enemy of the people’ “.

(Ivy Litvinov: op.cit.; p.17).

and John Carswell, the biographer of Ivy Litvinov, writes that

“… this humiliation… was an important stage in Maksim’s disillusionment with the ‘reality’ which the Revolution claimed to have created”.

(John Carswell: op.cit.; p.149).

Litvinov to Washington

However, in December 1941, some months after the German attack on the Soviet Union,

“… Stalin sent for for Litvinov, shook hands with him in a friendly manner and appointed him to Washington”. (Ilya Ehrenburg: ‘Men, Years — Life’, Volume 6: ‘Post-War Years: 1945-1954′, London; 1966; p.279).

And Litvinov’s biograoher Voitech Mastny remarks that in the new situation of Anglo-American-Soviet co-operation, Litvinov was

“… the right person to be chosen to reassure the West”.

(Voitech Mastny: op.cit.; p.368).

Litvinov Voices Dissent from Soviet Foreign Policy

Litvinov’s biographer Vojtech Mastny notes:

“Towards the end of his long and distinguished career in the Soviet diplomatic service, Maksim Litvinov tantalised his foreign interlocutors with increasingly candid expressions of dissent from his employers’ official line. There are several such incidents on record from May 1943 to February 1947″.

(Voitech Mastny: op.cit.; p.366).

In May 1943, having been recalled to Moscow, he is on record complaining to US Assistant Secretary of State Sumner Welles

“… that he was unable to communicate with Stalin, whose isolation then bred a distorted view of the West”.

(Voitech Mastny: ibid.; p.368).

However, according to the Soviet revisionist journalist Ilya Ehrenburg, Litvinov

“… was reticent in his opinion of him (Stalin — Ed.) . . . and only once, when speaking about foreign policy, said with a sigh: ‘He doesn’t know the West’”.

(Jlya Ehrenburg: op.cit.; p.278).

At the same time as Litvinov was recalled from the USA,

“… the other official protagonist of pro-Western reputation, Ambassador to London Ivan M. Maisky”,

(Vojtech Mastny: ibid.; p.368).

was recalled to Moscow.

Litvinov

“… still held the post of Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs (the title of ‘People’s Commissar was changed to that of ‘Minister’ in January 1946 — Ed.) but was given work of little importance”.

(Ilya Ehrenburg: op.cit.; p,. 279).

In the first months of 1945,

“… Maksim made no secret of his view that the Yalta agreement, Stalin’s greatest diplomatic victory, was a disaster for the future of international relations”.

(John Carswell: op.cit.; p.158-59).

In June 1945 he is on record as complaining to American journalist Edgar Snow:

“We (Litvinov and Maisky — Ed.) are on the shelf…

The Commissariat (for Foreign Affairs — Ed.) is run by only three men and none of them knows or understands America and Britain…

Why did you Americans wait till right now to begin opposing us in the

Balkans and Eastern Europe? You should have done this three years ago.

Now it’s too late”.

(Edgar Snow: op.cit.; p.314, 357).

In June 1946 Lityinov gave an interview in Moscow to the correspondent of the Columbia Broadcasting System, Richard Hottelot. According to Hottelot,

“.. Litvinov’s attitude was one of resignation mixed with disgust and relief that he was not identified with his government’s foreign policy”

(Richard C. Hottelot: Interview with Maksim Litvinov (June 1946), in: ‘Washington Post’ (22 January 1952); p.11B).

According to Hottelot, Litvinov declared:

“The Kremlin cannot be trusted and cannot be appeased”.

(Maksim Litvinov: Interview with Richard Hottelot (June 1946), ‘Washington Post’ (21 January 1952); p.1).

so that any attempt by the Western powers to meet Soviet demands

“… would lead to the West being faced, after a more or less short time, with the next series of demands”.

(Maksim Litvinov: Interview with Richard Hottelot (June 1946), in:

‘Washington Post’ (21 January 1952); p.1).

Because of its content, the interview remained unpublished until after Litvinov’s death in December 1951. Hottelot explains Litvinov’s frankness by his wish to present his ‘political testament to the West’:

“This strange interlude awakened the impression that . . . it was meant as Litvinov’s political testament to the Western world”.

(Richard C. Hottelot: Interview with Makaim Litvinov (June 1946), ‘Washington Post’, 21 January 1952; p.4).

We knew his career had just come to an end… This was probably Litvinov’s last chance to be heard”.

(Richard C. Hottelot: Interview with Maksim Litvinov (June 1946), in: ‘Washington Post’ (24 January 1952); p.13).:

Litvinov’s Final Demotion

In August 1946,

“… ‘Pravda’ printed a brief notice in small type on its back page to the effect that Maksim Maksimovich Litvinov had been relieved of his post as Deputy Foreign Minister.

There was nothing more. He went into oblivion”.

(‘Washington Post’, 24 January 1952; p.13).

Ilya Ehrenburg notes that

“… Litvinov was not arrested, but Stalin removed him from all functions, … He was pensioned off, not at his own request”.

(Ilya Ehrenburg: op.cit.; p.278, 279).

However, he

“… followed the development of Soviet foreign policy with increasing disapproval. Much of his time was taken up in elaborating a long memorandum to Stalin which analysed and commented on what he called ‘Molotov’s’ errors”.

(John Carswell: op.cit.: p.161).

In fact,

“… his years of retirement were overshadowed by the possibility of denunciation and trial”.

John Carswel~: ibid.; p.161).

The Death of Litvinov

At Litvinov’s funeral in January 1952,

“… the highest ranking mourners were Deputy Prime Ministers”

(‘Washington Post’, 25 January 1952: p.21).

with

“… no one from the Politburo”.

(Henry L. Roberts: op.cit.; p.375).

CONCLUSION

Julio Alvarez del Vayo, who was Spanish Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Republican government during most of the civil war, sums up

“… the whole saga of non-intervention”

(Ivan Maisky: ibid.; p.203).

as follows:

“It was the finest example of the art of handing victims over to the aggressor States, while preserving the perfect manners of a gentleman and at the same time giving the impression that peace is the one objective and consideration”.

(Julio Alvarez del Vayo: op.cit.; p.252).

AND REVISIONIST ELEMENTS IN INFLUENTIAL POSITIONS IN THE CPSU WERE ACCOMPLICES IN THIS REACTIONARY FARCE.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Alexander, Bill: ‘British Volunteers for Liberty: Spain 1936-1939′; London; 1982.
Alpert, Michael: ‘A New International History of the Spanish Civil War’; Basingstoke; 1994.
Alvarez del Vayo, Julio: ‘Freedom’s Battle’; London; 1937.
Beloff, Max: ‘The Foreign Policy of Soviet Russia: 1929-1941′, Volume 2; ’1936-1941′; London; 1945.
Brenan, Gerald: ‘The Spanish Labyrinth: An Account of the Social and Political Background of the Spanish Civil War’; Cambridge; 1971.
Broue, Pierre & Temime, Emile:’The Revolution and the Civil War in Spain’; London; 1972.
Browne, Harry: ‘Spain’s Civil War’; Harlow; 1983.
Carr, Edward H.: ‘The Comintern and the Spanish Civil War’; London; 1984. Carswell, John: ‘The Exile: A Life of Ivy Litvinov’; London’;
Cattell, David T.:’Communism and the Spanish Civil War’; Berkeley (USA); 1955.
Cattell, David T.:’Soviet Diplomacy and the Spanish Civil War’; Berkeley (USA); 1957.
Coates, William P. & Zelda: ‘A History of Anglo-Soviet Relations’; London; 1943.
Dallin, Alexander : ‘Allied Leadership in the Second World War: Stalin’, in: ‘Survey’, Volume 21, Nos. 1/2 (Winter/Spring 1975).
Degras, Jane (Ed.): ‘Soviet Documents on Foreign Policy’, Volume 3; London; 1953.
Degras, Jane (Ed.): ‘The Communist International: 1919-1943; Documents’, Volume 3; London; 1965.
Dzelepy, Eleuthere N.:’The Spanish Plot’; London; 1937.
Ehrenburg, Ilya: ‘Men, Years — Life’, Volume 6: ‘Post4~r Years: 1945-1954′; London; 1966.
Fischer, Louis: ‘The Great Challenge’; New York; 1971. Gromyko, Andrei: ‘Memoirs’; London; 1989.
Howat, Gerald M. D. (Ed.): ‘Dictionary of World History’; London; 1973. London; 1960.
Ibarruri, Dolores: ‘They shall not pass: The Autobiography of La Pasionaria’;
Krivitsky, Walter C.: ‘I was Stalin’s Agent’; London; 1939.
Maisky, Ivan: ‘Spanish Notebooks’; London; 1966.
Mastny, Vojtech: ‘The Cassandra of the Foreign Commssariat: Maksim Litvinov and the Cold War’, in: ‘Foreign Affairs’, Volume 54, No. 2 (January 1976). Mitchell, David: ‘The Spanish Civil War’; London; 1982.
Molotov, Vyacheslav M.:Statement in the Supreme Soviet of the USSR on the Ratification of the Soviet-German Pact of Non-Aggression of August 21, 1939; London; 1939.
Roberts, Henry L.:’Maksim Litvinov’, in: Gordon A. Craig & Felix Gilbert: ‘The Diplomats: 1919-1939′; Princeton (USA); 1953.
Snow, Edgar: ‘Journey to the Beginning’; London; 1959.
Thomas, Hugh: ‘The Spanish Civil War’; London; 1977.
Whealey, Robert H.: ‘Foreign Intervention in the Spanish Civil War’, in:
Raymond Carr (Ed.): ‘The Republic and the Civil War in Spain’; London; 1971.

- From ‘Documents and Materials relating to the Eve of the Second World War: From the Archives of the German Ministry of Foreign Affairs’, Volume 1; Moscow; 1948.
– ‘Documents Diplomatiques Francais: 1932-1939; 2nd Series (1936-1939), Volume 3; Paris; 1966.
-’Falsifiers of History (Historical Information)’; London; 1948.
-’L’Humanite’.
-’International Press Correspondence’.
–’International Solidarity with the Spanish Republic: 1936-1939′; Moscow; 1976, — ‘Keesing’s Contemporary Archives.
— ‘New Encylopaedia Britannica’.
— ‘Observer Review’.
— ‘Times’.

The Intrigues of Franco’s Trotskyist Agents

e8bc8d8fd7c24ca5cedecb17d36b3270

On 16 March the anarchists’ central organ, Solidaridad Obrera, published in Barcelona berates the Soviet press with abusive attacks. And in particular, the author judges the dispatches from Soviet correspondents concerning the counter-revolutionary attitude of the Trotskyist organisation, the POUM, as a damaging tactic, the object of which is to sow discord in the ranks of the ‘anti-fascists of Spain’.

This sleazy little article, which rallies to the defence of the Trotskyist traitors, is the work is the work of obscure elements who have wheedled their way into the ranks of the anarcho-syndicalist organisation. These are the erstwhile collaborators of Primo de Rivera, of the ‘Fascist (and Trotskyist) Falange’. It is an open secret that outright reactionaries rule the roost in Solidaridad Obrera and that its real editor is Cánovas Cervantes, former editor of the fascist periodical La Tierra.

These agents of Franco’s have ensconced themselves in the anarchist organisation with an eye to shattering from within the unity of the Spanish people, but their designs will not bear fruit. Daily the anarcho-syndicalist masses are taking more to heart the notion that an iron discipline, a strong Popular Army is sorely needed. This is the reason why the enemies of the Spanish people, having infiltrated the ranks of anarchism, now attack the Popular Front with redoubled fury.

It is no coincidence that at the very time when the Italians were beginning their attack on Guadalajara, these accursed Trotskyists organised an armed uprising near Valencia. We also have to note that the Valencia periodical Nosotros, in its back page articles, issues daily calls for the release of those detained for their part in the armed uprising, among which are a number of self-confessed fascists. These demands are always accompanied by threats to the government.

Solidaridad Obrera’s anti-Soviet item shows us that the Trotskyists and other agents of the German and Italian secret police want to seize control of the anarchists’ main organ. This fact has already alarmed the leaders of the Catalan anarchists, who truly seek to combat the dark forces of international fascism. – N. Oliver

Pravda, 22 March 1937

Wilhelm Faupel on Franco’s Involvement in the Barcelona May Days

poum44

“Concerning the disorders in Barcelona, Franco has told me that the street fighting was provoked by his agents. Nicholas Franco has confirmed this report, informing me that they have a total of 13 agents in Barcelona. Some time ago one of them had reported that the tension between Anarchists and Communists in Barcelona was so great that it could well end in street fighting. The Generalissimo told me that at first he doubted this agent’s reports, but later they were confirmed by other agents. Ordinarily he didn’t intend to take advantage of the possibility until military operations had been established in Catalonia. But since the Reds had recently attacked Teruel to aid the Government of Euzcadi (the Basque provinces), he thought the time was right for the outbreak of disorders in Barcelona. In fact, a few days after he had received the order, the agent in question with three or four of this men, succeeded in provoking shooting in the streets which later led to the desired results.”

German Ambassador to Franco’s Spain Wilhelm von Faupel in a communique to Berchtesgaden dated May 11, 1937, quoted in Progressive Labor, Volume 9, page 113.

Lessons of People’s War in Spain 1936-1939

4 R

Progressive Labor, Vol. 9, No. 5 (Oct.-Nov. 1974), 106-116.

The Spanish Civil War was the opening act of the Second World War in Europe. It was the military and political proving ground both for European Fascism, and for class-collaborationist policies that the old communist movement never outlived.

In one important respect, however, the Spanish War differed from the major conflict which was to follow. In Spain, the major capitalist powers united–despite their contradictions with one another–against the threat of proletarian revolution, a threat made real by the Asturias revolt of 1934. When the World War came, the lines were not drawn, as the imperialists had wished, with Hitler’s Germany attacking the Soviet Union, with active or “neutral” support from the “democracies.” Instead, the imperialists fought among themselves, leaving the Soviet workers to destroy Hitler virtually by themselves.

The History of the Civil war has long preoccupied red-baiters of all sorts, seeking to vilify Spanish communists, the Communist International, and Stalin. Anti-communist writers have produced almost as many pages of lies about the struggle in Spain as about the October Revolution. This article will be a brief attempt to exhume some of the lessons for the working class that have been buried under this mass of filth.

We will see that study of the war has practical value for communists of today on a number of points. We will see that the Spanish Communist Party (PCE) and the Comintern provided the only effective leadership–political and military–in the struggle against Fascism in Spain. The PCE, unlike all the groups of “left” creeps beloved of anti-communist writers from Orwell to Chomsky, was able to organize hundreds of thousands of working people into a powerful military force, despite the enormous material difficulties and their own weaknesses.

As for the errors of the PCE, they confirm major points of PL’s line: (I) communists lose when they abandon the struggle for workers’ dictatorship; (II) fighting fascism is critical for worker’s victory; (III) nationalism and alliances with bosses are disastrous; (IV) “unity” with various phony left groups–Anarchists and Trotskyites–is as fatal as “unity” with bosses.

The Spanish Republic

Spain was and is a minor capitalist power, largely agricultural, with major portions of its industry controlled from abroad. In the ’30s, industry was concentrated along the northern coast in Asturias and the Basque provinces (mainly mining) and in Catalonia on the east coast (light industry). The principal foreign owners were English, French, Belgian, Canadian and U.S. capitalists. The Catholic Church was a large land owner, and the Jesuits owned or controlled major banks, railways, mines, and factories.(1)

The Spanish Republic was established in 1931 when King Alfonso XIII decided to “suspend the use of (his) Royal Prerogatives” and leave the country.(2) Weakened and discredited by many years of colonial war against the Riffs in Morocco (costing over $800 million), and in the throes of the world economic depression, the monarchy was no longer a viable form of bourgeois rule, and was superceded first by a bourgeois republic and then by Fascism.

The Republic established universal suffrage (both sexes), promulgated a skimpy land reform, expanded public education, and reduced the prerogatives of the Army and the Catholic Church. The Catalan and Basque provinces were granted limited independence, and the Barcelona municipal government was reorganized as the Catalan Government, called the “Generalitat.”(3)

In 1932, General Sanjurjo led a small group of monarchists, landowners, clericalists and army officers in a coup against the Republic, but lacking support from the major forces of the ruling class, it failed. In the elections of November, 1933, however, the forces of the Right made substantial gains. The largest party in the Cortes (parliament) was the Rightist catholic party, CEDA, but the first government was formed as a coalition of Center parties, which halted or reversed many of the earlier reforms and amnestied Sanjurjo.(4)

In October, 1934, when a new government was formed with ministers from the CEDA, the Socialists and Communists of the UGT labor federation saw this as the onset of Fascism, and called a general strike in Madrid. The Socialist leadership of the UGT went underground, the large Anarchist-led labor federation (CNT) abstained, and the strike was short-lived. In Catalonia, the Generalitat declared independence from the central government, but the Anarchists again abstained and the rebellion was brief.

In Asturias, however, well-organized Socialist, Communist and Anarchist miners cooperated in a full-scale insurrection–in one place, declaring a Soviet Republic. The government called in the Foreign Legion and Moorish Regulares, commanded by Generals Goded and Franco. Franco, who had made his reputation in command of the Legion in the Moroccan wars, was selected for this similar job by multimillionaire Juan March, of whom we will hear more later.(5)

After bitter fighting, the rising was ruthlessly suppressed. As many as 3,000 workers were killed, mostly slaughtered after they surrendered. 30,000 prisoners were taken.(6)

The Rebellion in Asturias was a turning point in Spanish politics. Unlike the periodic rebellions of the Anarchists, it was sufficiently extensive and well-organized to show that working class revolution in Spain was a possibility to be reckoned with. The bosses learned this lesson well, but, for the most part, the Left did not, a failure which would lead to many future errors.

For the next elections of February, 1936, the parties of the Left formed a so-called “Popular Front” slate. The strategy of the Popular Front was developed at the 7th Congress of the Communist International, the idea being that in view of the dangers of Fascism and imperialist war, communists should form an alliance with Social-Democrats and some bourgeois elements to preserve bourgeois democracy and peace. This program was taken to include attempts to form united Socialist-Communist parties and, in some cases, communist participation in bourgeois governments. Thus the Popular Front was an alliance which included not only the rank-and-file, but also the class-collaborationist leadership of the Social-Democratic parties, and which supported the “good” liberal bosses against the “bad” Fascist ones. This line was made explicit by G. Dimitroff in his otherwise guarded exposition of the Popular Front strategy at the 7th Congress. Dimitroff claimed that those comrades who linked Roosevelt’s “New Deal” to Fascism were guilty of a “stereotyped approach” to the united front:

“One must indeed be a confirmed addict of the use of hackneyed schemes not to see that the most reactionary circles of American finance capital, which are attacking Roosevelt, represent first and foremost the very force which is stimulating and organizing the Fascist movement in the United States.”(7)

However, as subsequent events in Spain and elsewhere were to demonstrate, ruling class differences over Fascism versus bourgeois democracy were merely temporary and tactical. The very same bosses try to ensure their rule with “democracy” at one place or time and Fascism at another. We will see below how English, French and U.S. bosses, to which the Spanish Republic appealed for aid, helped their friendly local Fascists instead. We will also see how the utterly futile attempts of the Spanish communists to get ruling class support eventually cost them the war. The minimum condition for support was, of course, abandoning the struggle for the dictatorship of the proletariat. In fact the PCE agitated against workers’ rule and repudiated it as an immediate goal. This was a line not only for public consumption, but one around which they recruited and organized the party’s base. Thus when the treachery, incompetence and defeatism of the Republican government became absolutely unbearable, the PCE was willing and able to force some of the worst offenders from the government, but not to take power and lead the struggle through a workers’ government.

The Fascist Rising

In the February elections, the Popular Front won a major electoral victory, obtaining 278 seats in the Cortes, while the Right took only 134. The parties of the Center practically ceased to exist. Even Francisco Cambo, biggest capitalist in Catalonia, lost his seat.

The elections were not even completed before planning for another right-wing coup began, this time on a large scale. Franco urged the caretaker Prime Minister to declare a state of war and keep the Popular Front from taking office. His request was refused on the grounds that granting it would provoke a revolution.(8)

With this refusal, Franco began to plot in earnest, together with a number of generals, including Sanjurjo and Mola (both to die within the year under mysterious circumstances, thus incidentally assuring Franco’s ascendancy in the Fascist camp.)

Among others, the plotters included representatives of the feuding monarchist factions, the CEDA, and, through them, various financiers.(9)  Juan March, who reportedly contributed $15,000,000 to the coup,(10)  had left the country for France, but kept in contact with the plotters through his envoy, the Bishop of the Catholic Mission in France.(11) Francisco Cambo also left the country, having deposited the principal assets of his Catalan financial empire in Buenos Aires.(12) Cambo was apparently not directly involved in the coup, but supported it after the fact.(13)  The plotters were assured in advance of German and Italian financial support in exchange for metal ores.(14)

The tiny Falange Espanola, the “official” Fascist party of Spain, took part in the plot and together with the Carlists (monarchists) of Navarre, provided the whole of the minuscule popular support on which the plotters could count. The Falange was supported in its early days by Juan March, the Bank of Vizcaya (partly controlled by the Jesuits), various Basque industrialists and Bourbon monarchists.(15) After the rising, it was transformed into Franco’s party.(16)

Rumors of the plot were widespread. On July 13, PCE deputy Jose Diaz accused the Right in the Cortes: “You cannot deny that you are plotting, that you are preparing a coup.”(17) The same day, PCE spokeswoman Dolores Ibarurri (“La Pasionaria”) spoke in Asturias:

“Asturianos! Be vigilant. Reaction is even now in arms. If they dare attempt to rise, you will know what to do. Retrieve your arms now, from where you have hidden them–and keep your powder dry.”(18)

A good aspect of the PCE actions shown here was their reliance on workers to combat Fascism, but here and for the entire war, their outlook was largely defensive. Not: “let’s go kill the plotters and establish socialism,” but “let’s get them if they try anything.”

On the 16th of July, Franco flew in a British plane from his quasi-exile in the Canary Islands to Mallorca in the Mediterranean. On the plane with him was a certain Captain Pollard, agent of the British Secret Service. Pollard got the British Consul to intercede with the Republican authorities when the plane was seized for lack of papers. It was released.(19)

On the next afternoon, the Fascist rising began in Morocco. Hearing of the events in Morocco, the trade unions and parties of the Left demanded that the workers be armed by the government. In most areas, they were not, but many rebellious garrisons on the mainland were subdued by workers with arms taken from police and army units. At the end of this first phase of the rebellion, two-thirds of the territory of Spain and three-fourths of its population were held by the Republic. The main forces of the Fascists were the Foreign Legion and the Moorish Regulares of the Army of Africa in Morocco, but they could not cross the straits to Spain since the sailors of the fleet had arrested their officers and prevented them from joining the revolt. To get Franco out of this difficulty, Hitler sent the first substantial military aid, 20 transport planes to bring the Army of Africa to Spain. At its peak, German aid to Franco would stand at about 6,000 specialized troops of the Condor Legion, mainly tankmen, pilots, artillerymen and advisors, plus a large amount of material. The maximum size of the Italian forces was about 100,000 troops, with enormous quantities of material.(20) The European “democracies” chipped in with a “non-intervention” policy which began by refusal to sell arms to the Republic and worked up to a naval blockade in conjunction with Germany and Italy.

In May, 1937, the U.S. Neutrality Act became law, supplementing the informal efforts of the State Department to prevent arms sales to Spain.(21) In the first days of the fighting, Vacuum Oil refused to honor a contract to fuel Republican ships in Tangiers, and Texaco diverted five tankers of gasoline bound for the Republic to the Fascists.(22) The State Department tried to prevent the sale of aircraft to the Republic by Mexico.(23)  During the war, Texaco delivered at least 1,866,000 metric tons of petroleum products to Franco. Ford, General Motors and Studebaker sold a total of 12,000 trucks to Franco, as compared to 1,700 from Italy and 1,800 from Germany. Neither fuel nor trucks were sold to the Republic.(24)

U.S. companies also sold arms to the Fascists by first shipping them to Nazi Germany, from which they were transshipped to Spain. In 1938, Dupont-owned Atlas Powder Company sent 60,000 aerial bombs to Germany in this fashion, all marked “For transshipment to an undisclosed destination.”(25) In April, 1938, Roosevelt publicly admitted that the bombs falling on Republican cities were American-made. “It is all perfectly legal,” he said.(26)

Apart from the naval “non-intervention” patrol, Britain confined her aid to Franco to ammunition deliveries through Gibraltar and intelligence reports on Russian aid to the Republic, plus various commercial deals.(27)

For their part, the Popular Front government of France made its contribution to Fascism in a number of ways other than “non-intervention.” After selling the Republic a small quantity of obsolete aircraft, they closed the border to arms and volunteers. Volunteers for the Republic caught in France were imprisoned, but the largely communist-led underground organizations got many over the border. Large quantities of Soviet arms and arms purchased by the Comintern were held on French soil. After the fall of Catalonia, Republican refugees were treated to the best in ruling class hospitality–concentration camps.

Aid to the Republic from the Soviet Union began arriving in Spain in October, 1936, barely in time for a detachment of Soviet tanks to help in the defense of Madrid. The total number of Soviet personnel in Spain at any one time probably never totaled 700.(28) Soviet arms shipments were limited after the closing of the French border by the necessity to run the gauntlet of Italian submarines and aircraft and the “non-intervention” patrol–and also by the desire to avoid a world war, a desire unrealized in the event. According to Franco sources, 53 merchant ships were sunk, 324 captured and 1,000 detained at sea for carrying arms to the Republic. Not all of these were carrying Soviet war material, of course, but among the Soviet ships known sunk were the Komsomol, the Timiriazev, and the Blagoev.(29)

The general effect of foreign intervention of all sorts was that the Republic almost never fought with parity of arms, and typically faced odds in material and men of 3 or 4 to one.(30)

Communists Organize For Victory

After being transported from Morocco by Hitler’s planes, the Army of Africa advanced rapidly north through the open country of central Spain, pushing back the poorly armed and inexperienced militias of the Popular Front. As the militias retreated toward Madrid, however, resistance stiffened. The PCE urged the Republican government, headed by “left” Socialist fatmouth Francisco Largo Caballero, to organize fortification of the city. His reply: “Spaniards might fight from behind trees, but never from trenches.”(31)  Minister of War as well as Prime Minister, Largo displayed his dazzling incompetence only during specified hours; he would sign papers only between 8:30 and 9:00 A.M., and left orders not to be disturbed after 10:00 P.M.!(32) On November 6, the government formalized its abdication of responsibility for defense of the capital and moved to Valencia. All the ministers except the communists left with Largo Caballero, taking even the records of the Ministry of War.(33) On the 9th, as fierce fighting raged in the city, Largo sent a messenger to Madrid for the silverware he had left behind, but received only the reply that “we who have remained in Madrid are still eating.”(34)

Largo had left the defense of the capital to Miaja, an incompetent Republican general of doubtful loyalty, and to a Defense Junta of trade union and Popular Front representatives. Fortunately, Soviet General Goriev, nominally Miaja’s advisor, was on hand to handle the military planning of the defense.(35)

The even more important political side of the mobilization of the city’s population was led by the PCE. At the start of the rebellion, La Pasionaria’s broadcasts and speeches called for the resolute defense of Madrid: “They shall not pass!” “Madrid will be the tomb of Fascism!” Since then, the PCE had organized to make this a reality. Their famous Fifth Regiment had recruited over 60,000 militiamen (half PCE members), which soon became the backbone of the People’s Army. Modeled on the Soviet Red Army of Russian civil war days, the 5thRegiment had a system of political commissars responsible for the political understanding of the troops and commanders, and who acted as commanders themselves when the need arose. Tens of thousands of workers were trained in the Regiment, including the soon to be famous commanders Lister (a quarryman), Modesto (a woodcutter) and El Campesino (“The Peasant”). Barracks, commissary, and training schools were organized, as well as committees to look after families of recruits. Discipline came hard and a special company was organized as an example. The commissar of the 5th Regiment described this company to a journalist:

“We called it the “Steel Company” and made stringent requirements. To join this company a man must know something of arms, must have good health and must be guaranteed by some group as a determined anti-fascist. For this company we established special slogans designed to create an iron unity. ‘Never leave a comrade, wounded or dead, in the hands of the enemy’ was one of these. ‘If my comrade advances or retreats without orders, I have the right to shoot him’, was another.

How Madrid laughed at that. The Spaniard is such an individualist that nobody will accept such discipline, they said. Then our first Steel Company–mostly Communists and metalworkers–paraded through the city: it made a sensation. After that we created twenty-eight such companies of picked men, besides the ordinary muster of our regular Fifth Regiment militia.”(36)

Partly because of the seriousness and effectiveness with which the communists organized the militias, membership in the PCE, JSU (United Socialist Youth) and the PSUC (United Socialist Party of Catalonia, also affiliated with the Comintern) soared: from 30,000 at the beginning of the war to 200,000 at the end of 1936 to 1,000,000 by June, 1937.(37)

Foreign volunteers recruited largely by communist parties were organized into communist-led International Brigades. About 40,000 served in the Brigades, as many as 17,000 at any one time.(38) Like the Fifth Regiment, the Internationals were famous for their discipline and courage. Hemingway described the hill in Teruel defended by the German exiles of the Thaelmann Brigade as “a position that they sold as dearly as any position was sold in any war.”(39) The Internationals played a significant role in the early days of the fighting when troops with any sort of training were scarce, and fought well throughout. Their recruitment was an act of internationalism enormously appreciated by the Spanish workers. In the later part of the war, many Spaniards were recruited to the Brigades. Foreigners were withdrawn in 1938 in a vain effort to secure League of Nations action against German and Italian intervention. By that time, however, there were many crack units in the People’s Army.

As Fascist troops approached Madrid, Communists assumed the functions of the departed civil servants; radio, leaflets and banners urged the workers of Madrid to dig trenches and build barricades. Workers’ districts were organized block by block; 5th Regiment leaflets gave advice on battling tanks and house-to-house fighting.(40)

On November 7th, Franco’s troops, expecting an easy victory, assaulted the city from the west, southwest, and northwest, but were repulsed by the hard-pressed militias, particularly the Fifthh Regiment, in hand-to-hand fighting. For the 8th, the defenders prepared for renewed attacks, which they knew would come throughout the University City. The Fascist forces intentionally avoided attacking through the working-class districts “heavily seeded with Communist workers.”(41)

Resistance was furious in the University, with workers and Fascist troops occupying different floors of the same building. In some places rifles were so scarce that workers waited under cover until those with arms had been shot, then rushed out to pick up the guns and fight on.(42) In the afternoon, the vanguard of the recently constituted 11th International Brigade marched up the Gran Via, singing the Internationale. Crowds cheered the volunteers of the Edgar Andre (Belgian), Dombrowski (Polish) and Commune de Paris (French) battalions, shouting “United Proletarian Brothers,” the motto of the Asturias revolt of 1934. Many believed the Brigades to be Russian and gave vivas for “los russos.”

By nightfall, the much-needed machine guns of the Edgar Andres were in positions in the Hall of Philosophy in the University, and other brigades were distributed to vital points. Twice on the next day the Moroccan Tabors broke through militia lines at the Toledo and Princes Bridges, but were driven back with heavy losses.(43)  In the evening, the Internationals outflanked the Moroccans in the Casa de Campo, driving them back with enormous losses.(44)

From November 8th to the 15th, nine militia units came from other areas to aid Madrid. One, the 3,000-man Anarchist column from the Aragon Front, deserves mention for its example of Anarchist military organization. The column was led by Buenaventura Durruti, whose demands for an independent section of the front “so that their achievements could not then be claimed by other units” were supported by the Anarchist Minister of Justice.(45) 

The Anarchists were given a sector in the University City, with artillery and air support, but refused to attack. The next day, the Fascists attacked and the Anarchists broke and ran, abandoning a key bridge and positions in the University. Counterattacks by exhausted militiamen and Internationals regained some of the lost territory; lines thus established were to remain the same until the end of the war. Ashamed of the performance of his men, Durruti tried to persuade them not to leave Madrid but was shot and killed by one of them.(46)

Aragon and Catalonia: Anarchists and Trotskyites Play at Revolution

The Trotskyite POUM (Workers Party of Marxist Unification) was formed in October, 1935 by the fusion of two sects led by renegades from the PCE. Their activities were largely confined to Catalonia. Until their suppression in May, 1937, the POUM acted as an adjunct to the Anarchist Federation of Iberia (FAI) and the labor federation (CNT) which the FAI led. Vitriolic in their attacks on “Stalinists,”(47) the POUM merely offered friendly advice to the Anarchists, who held “similar ideas concerning hopes and perspectives on the revolution.”(48)

After the Fascist rising, the FAI-CNT was the strongest political force in Catalonia, dominating the Anti-Fascist Militias committee. This Committee held the real power in Barcelona for the first year of the war, although the Generalitat continued to have some influence in the countryside.(49)

Under Anarchist leadership, workers’ committees took over the factories in Barcelona and established agricultural collectives in rural areas, in some cases by force.(50) A number of foreign-owned plants were not confiscated; 87 British enterprises were protected by agreement with the British Consulate.(51)

Sources sympathetic to the Anarchists claim that their industrial experiments were successful, particularly in the arms industries,(52) and were sabotaged by the lack of credit from the central government. Conflicts with the central government did exist, but a more accurate explanation of the causes of industrial failures in Catalonia is given by Abad de Santillan, Anarchist member of the Militias Committee:

“We have not organized the economic apparatus which we had planned. We have been satisfied with throwing out the proprietors from the factories and putting ourselves in them, as committees of control. There has been no attempt at connections, there has been no coordination of the economy in due form. We have worked without plans and without real knowledge of what we were doing.”(53)

Abad de Santillan thought that this situation was improving at the end of 1936, but noted that 15,000-20,000 workers were still collecting wages without working.(54) The fact is that the individualistic and muddle-headed FAIists were incapable of giving the leadership that would have enabled the working class to organize industry effectively.

After the defeat of the Fascist rising in Barcelona, Anarchists and POUMists organized militias which “fought” on the Aragon front. Their military accomplishments were truly amazing: they made a demonstration in the direction of Zaragoza, the capital of Aragon, and settled in to trade occasional shots with the Fascists. New York Times correspondent Herbert Matthews was told by a POUM militiaman from the “Lenin” Division at Huesca that

“We used to play football with the Fascists down there on the plain. They were good fellows. They invited us to spend the weekend in Saragossa and Jaca, and promised they’d let us come back.”(55)

Huesca had been virtually surrounded by the inactive Catalan militias for 11 months when a major attempt was made to capture the city by newly-organized People’s Army forces.(56) The lull had been put to better use than football games by the Fascists, who had built substantial fortifications. The attack failed.(57)

Internationals relieving Anarchist troops on the Ebro Riber a year after the beginning of the war found no fortifications, and positions a full two kilometers from Fascist lines.(58) Exactly two casualties had been admitted to the nearby military hospital in the previous three months.(59) Anarchist militias had elevated chaos into a political principle. A leaflet distributed in Aragon stated that:

“We do not recognize military formations because this is the negation of Anarchism. Winning the war does not mean winning the revolution. Technology and strategy are important in the present war, not discipline which presupposes a negation of the personality.”(60)

If in nothing else, Durruti was certainly right when he lamented that “War is made by soldiers, not by Anarchists.”(61)

The Internationals also found a peasant population embittered against Republican forces by the Anarchist seizures. The commissar of the Lincoln Brigade found one farmer incredulous that he was offered money for food instead of worthless script.(62) The sullen attitudes of the Aragon farmers contrasted markedly with the enthusiastic support that had met the People’s Army forces outside Anarchist-controlled areas.(63)

On the Fascist side, the Aragon front was very weakly held: a Franco historian says that the Fascists were able to remove forces from that front to attack Madrid.(64) POUMists and their defenders have excused their criminal footdragging by the lack of arms for POUM and FAI-CNT forces, claiming that communists withheld Soviet material from Aragon.(65) Orwell, for example, explains their failure to attack, despite the desires of the rank-and-file militiamen, by the lack of artillery and maps, the difficult terrain, and the fact that there was only one machine gun for every fifty men.(66) With the same material difficulties–including one machine gun per fifty men–the communist-led 35th Division forced the Ebro River in July, 1938, advanced 25 kilometers, captured 4 towns and 2500 prisoners.(67)  The POUM leaders’ attitude is amply summed up by a remark Orwell quotes from his POUM commander Georges Kopp: “This is not war, it is comic opera with an occasional death.”(68) As we have seen, things weren’t so comic on the Madrid front.

Still, it must be said that the material shortages on the Aragon front do have a sinister explanation–but not the one the red-baiters offer. After the war, FAIist Abad de Santillan obliged us with a frank confession:

“If all the leaders of the Libertarian (anarchist) organizations had ever seriously resolved to send all their armament, their war material and their best men to the front–the war would easily have been over in a few months�We can no longer conceal the fact that while, at the front itself, we had by 30,000 rifles (and perhaps as many as 24 batteries, 200 heavy guns), in the rear, in the power of the organizations, we had an additional 60,000 rifles with more ammunition than was ever in the proximity of the enemy.”(69)

The intended purpose of these arms the anarchists kept from the front was combat with the other parties after the victory over Franco,(70) although the occasion never arose.

In fact, the opportunity for the supreme act of treachery did not come to the POUM or the Catalan Anarchists, but to Corp Commander Cipriano Mera, the highest ranking Anarchist officer in Spain. Mera’s contribution to Fascism came in 1939, when General Casado ran a coup against the Republican government to prevent further resistance to the Fascists. Communist commanders led their troops against Casado to put down the coup, but Mera brought his troops to Casado’s support and the PCE troops were defeated.(71)

The Trots Lose Their Playground

In Catalonia in late ’36 and early ’37, the disorganization of production, inflation, lack of serious prosecution of the war, and growth of the communist parties (PCE and PUSC) combined to weaken and discredit the POUM and the FAI. Faced with the clear failure of their utopian theories, the Anarchist movement began to disintegrate. In September, ’36, the FAI-CNT compromised their grotesquely anti-political principles and entered the Catalan Generalitat, along with the PUSC and Catalan Nationalist parties, with one delegate from the POUM.(72) Attacking the “Stalinists” for their advocacy of the Popular Front, the POUM was only too happy to be included in this one. Their incredibly sophistical defense of this action was that the “petty bourgeoisie” was collaborating with them, rather than vice-versa!(73)

In March, 1937, the central government ordered the confiscation of arms from the political parties(74); in Barcelona, measures were taken to curb the numerous street murders by the “uncontrollables”–thugs who had attached themselves to the FAI(75) — and to disband the militia “police.” The CNT and POUM declined to surrender arms or submit to the draft.(76)

Numerically insignificant, unable to build a base among workers and discredited by their “sheer inefficiency and incompetence all along the line,”(77)  the political bankruptcy of the POUM was complete. Dropping any pretense of fighting the Fascists, the POUM decided for an all-out battle against the communists instead.

On May 3, 1937, Catalan police chief Rodriguez Sala and the Generalitat representative for the Telephone Exchange went to the Exchange�s censorship department to complain of anarchist interference with government phone calls. Anarchist militiamen, who had held the exchange since the start of the war, fired from an upper floor. Brief fighting ensued, which was stopped by an FAI leader. Rumors of a “provocation” spread among CNT members and barricades were erected throughout the city. As sporadic fighting began between CNT and PUSC members, POUM leaders proposed to FAI-CNT leaders that communists be expelled from the government and “Stalinist” influence be eliminated in Catalonia once and for all.(78) The POUM was turned down flat.(79) Supported only by a small Anarchist group called the “Friends of Durriti” and a section of the Libertarian Youth, the POUM called for the overthrow of the Generalitat and the establishment of a Revolutionary Junta. Anarchist leaders attempted to secure truce in the barricade fighting and eventually did so, after several false starts. The arrival of 4,000 Assault Guards from Valencia assured that it would continue. Total casualties were reported as 400 killed, 1,000 wounded.(80)

In the central government, the PCE demanded the suppression of the POUM for these crimes. Largo Caballero refused, but this was the last straw even for members of his own party. Largo was ousted and Socialist Juan Negrin became Prime Minister. The POUM was suppressed, and about 40 POUMists arrested. Treacherous POUM leader Andres Nin was apparently executed by Soviet agents, small retribution for the deaths in Barcelona.(81) Other POUMists were held for trial on charges of espionage, treason, fomenting the fighting in Barcelona, and removing troops under their command from the front to Barcelona. At the trial, the POUMists denied they had helped to provoke the fighting, conveniently “forgetting” the articles in their own newspaper, La Batalla.(82) They even denied commanding the troops that had left the front at Heusca, some of them forced to return to the lines by the threat of bombing their buses.(83)  POUM “political secretary” Julian Gorkin was able to “remember” that La Batalla had reprinted a Fascist leaflet attacking the government which had been dropped over the lines. When Don Jose Gomis Soler, the public prosecutor, asked Gorkin why the source of the fascist leaflet was referred to in the tiniest type below the proclamation, Gorkin laughingly said: “This is a mere typographical matter.”(84)

The accused were found innocent of espionage and treason; all except one were found guilty of the other charges and sentenced to various terms.

Were the POUM Leaders Franco’s Agents?

The POUM leaders were accused by the PCE of being in the pay of Franco, and some of the incidents reported above indicate why this was plausible and widely believed in Republican Spain.(85)  Plainly, the POUM earned their money, even if they didn’t collect it.

On May 11, 5 days after the fighting began, Faupel, Hitler’s ambassador to Franco, wrote:

“Concerning the disorders in Barcelona, Franco has told me that the street fighting was provoked by his agents. Nicholas Franco has confirmed this report, informing me that they have a total of 13 agents in Barcelona. Some time ago one of them had reported that the tension between Anarchists and Communists in Barcelona was so great that it could well end in street fighting. The Generalissimo told me that at first he doubted this agent’s reports, but later they were confirmed by other agents. Ordinarily he didn’t intend to take advantage of the possibility until military operations had been established in Catalonia. But since the Reds had recently attacked Teruel to aid the Government of Euzcadi (the Basque provinces), he thought the time was right for the outbreak of disorders in Barcelona. In fact, a few days after he had received the order, the agent in question with three or four of this men, succeeded in provoking shooting in the streets which later led to the desired results.”(86)

Soon after the May fighting, a number of Franco agents were caught in Barcelona, and implicated Nin–perhaps for their own reasons.(87)

Some Catalan Anarchists openly expressed their Fascist sympathies. After the war, Abad de Santillan had praise for Jose Antonio Primo de Rivera, founder of the Fascist Falange Espanola:

“Despite the difference which separated us, we can understand this “spiritual kinship” with Jose Antonio, who after all was a fighter and a patriot in search of solutions for his country�Spaniards of his stature, patriots such as he are not dangerous. They are not the enemy. As for changing the destiny of Spain, there had been, before July, 1936, diverse attempts to align with us. If an accord had been tactically feasible, it would have been according to the desires of his father, Primo de Rivera (dictator of Spain under the monarchy).”(88)

Such are the political degenerates lionized by phony leftists who attack and slander communists.

What the Communists Did Wrong–Racism

Throughout the war, Franco relied on troops recruited and conscripted in Spanish (and French) Morocco. Perhaps 100,000 Moors fought for the Fascists.(89)  The Fascists encouraged every sort of atrocity on the part of the Moors, playing on the racism of the Republicans with great success. Fascist General Quiepo de Llano broadcast revolting descriptions of the rapes to be committed by Moorish troops should they capture Madrid.(90) Republican propaganda repeated and embroidered this racist trash. Posters in Madrid depicted Moorish soldiers as “thick-lipped, hideously grinning, powerful turbaned figures attacking defenseless white women and bayoneting white children.”(91)

Republican Minister of Foreign Affairs Alvarez del Vayo characterized Moors as “immune from all political propaganda of a democratic nature.”(92)  The facts are the exact opposite. Representatives of the Riffs of Morocco, who had fought a long war for independence in the teens and twenties, offered to organize against Franco in return for independence from Spain. The Republican government turned them down flat, fearing French reaction to an independence movement adjoining their own colonies in Africa, and hoping to use Morocco for bargaining with other capitalist powers. A Catalan delegation of Communists and Anarchists supported the Moroccan request, but got nowhere.(93)

The PCE never made a public fight over this crucial issue, which should not only have been a matter of principle, but which could have produced a powerful and proven ally in the struggle against Franco. Nor did the PCE combat racism in any other way. Instead, they promoted it! La Pasionaria repeated the filth of Radio Seville, accusing the Fascists of lack of patriotism for urging the Moors to rape Spanish women:

�Peasant girls violated by legionaries, mercenaries, and Moors, who have been tempted from their African villages by the promise of a “good time,” bear witness to this “patriotism” of the fascist murderers.(94)

PCE promotion of racism was far more than a lost opportunity for militant allies in Morocco (and the Spanish mainland); it was an error that contributed to all sorts of weaknesses of line and strategic failures. French bosses were right to fear that an independent Spanish Morocco would ignite independence struggles in the neighboring French colonies. This would have been an excellent development for the Republic, drawing off French and British aid to Franco. A determined struggle against racism would have dealt a major blow to the many nationalist divisions in the Republic. These divisions constituted an enormously important weakness, contributing to Anarchist predominance in Catalonia, where the war was finally lost.

The development of a class understanding of racism and capitalism’s need for it might have force the communist movement world-wide to abandon their wrong line on the nature of Fascism and capitalist rule. In other words, understanding the role of racism under capitalism leads to understanding the necessity for workers’ power; as well as making it possible to fight for it. A key strategy for organizing the struggle for socialism is to unite with and rely on the most oppressed–and the most militant–working people. In the long colonial wars, the Moors had shown themselves to be just that.

Finally, fighting racism in Spain could have helped develop a better line in other countries when their volunteers returned. As it was, the Internationals absorbed the prevailing racist atmosphere and took that home. British volunteers actually called the Moors “niggers.”(95)

Guerrilla War

The racist failure to aid the Moors to rise in Franco’s rear is paralleled by the Republic’s failure to develop partisan warfare in Fascist-held Spain. Stalin (among others) had urged Largo Caballero to organize partisans in December, 1936,(96)  but the policy was rejected on the grounds of lack of trained cadre and arms.(97)

If the PCE had understood that the war must be won by relying on the workers and peasants of Spain and Morocco, rather than waiting for help from foreign capitalists, it would have been obvious that organizing guerrillas in Fascist areas was necessary and possible. Guerrillas had operated successfully in Spain since the Napoleonic Wars, and large numbers of leftist sympathizers were in Franco-held areas. Disaffection with the Fascist regime was enormous behind the lines. In May, 1938, Franco described 40% of the population in the areas he controlled as “unreliable.”(98)  Nevertheless, guerrilla operations in the war were largely limited to Soviet-organized commando and intelligence operations, and a great opportunity to expand and win People’s War in Spain was lost.

Socialism: The Only Way to Win

Despite the importance of the previous points, the key to victory in the civil war was the fight for the dictatorship of the proletariat, not as a vague objective for the far-off future, but the immediate program to put into effect. There can be no doubt that the opportunity for taking power existed: the PCE and PUSC were the real organizers of the war against Fascism, and could have united the working class even more completely around worker’s dictatorship than around “a new type of parliamentary-democratic republic”(99) –a fig-leaf for bourgeois rule.

The effect of not taking power was to leave it in the hands of bosses’ agents who sabotaged the struggle against Franco. “Socialist” Largo Caballero was more than an incompetent egomaniac–he went so far as to bargain with the British and French to exclude the communists and Soviet aircraft.(100)  His successor in the Ministry of War, “Socialist” Indalecio Prieto, went around telling everyone who would listen that the Republic was bound to lose, and did virtually nothing to oppose a successful Fascist drive to cut the Republic in two in March, 1938.(101) Instead of taking power, the PCE organized an enormous demonstration in Barcelona, demanding that Prieto be ousted (which he was). But purging the government of such criminals after they have done irreparable damage cannot win. It is merely a defensive strategy to stave off defeat a little longer.

In contrast, the Bolsheviks of 1917 used the self-exposure of the Social-Democrats in the government to show that only workers’ rule can accomplish what the working class needs–and they took power.

Instead of this revolutionary policy, the republic, supported by the PCE, mounted military offensives not to win, but to hold out and impress the capitalist “democracies.” Like the NLF’s Tet offensive, the Ebro offensive in July, 1938, had no real chance of defeating the enemy militarily. Like the Tet offensive, it was aimed at achieving a favorable position in negotiations with the enemy; the Republic hoped to exploit the developing contradictions of England, France, and the U.S. with the Fascist powers by showing that the Republic was still an anti-Fascist force to be reckoned with.(102)  Thus, a main element of Popular Front strategy was to rely on the very bosses who were supporting Franco, and the strategy worked no better in Spain that it did in Vietnam. The bosses can be relied on for racism, murder and exploitation, but not for help! The only alternative is to rely on the workers, and that means fighting for workers’ power. Spain shows clearly what relying on the bosses means, since 400,000 people–apart from those dead in the fighting–were slaughtered after the Republic fell.(103)

The policy of attempting to exploit contradictions among the imperialists was also followed by the Soviet Union during the Spanish War, despite the fact that the “democracies” were busy inciting Hitler to wipe out workers’ power in Russia. During the thirties, the Soviet government tried to concoct alliances for the forthcoming war with almost every combination of European powers, finally signing a pact with Hitler himself. Even though the imperialists were finally unable to overcome their rivalries and unite against the Soviet Union, Soviet workers were left to defeat the Nazis virtually alone.(104)

Thus, the clear lesson of Spain and the larger conflict which was to follow is that workers have absolutely nothing to gain from alliances with bosses. We must rely on our own strength, fight racism and settle for nothing short of workers’ power and socialism. If we learn this lesson and put it into practice, the struggles and sacrifices of Spanish workers, though representing a temporary defeat, will contribute to final victory over capitalism and put into practice the motto of Asturias: “UNITE PROLETARIAN BROTHERS!”

Footnotes

1. Frank Jellinek, The Civil War in Spain, London, 1938, Chaps I, II, IV.

2. Hugh Thomas, The Spanish Civil War, New York, 1961, p. 19.

  1.  Ibid., Chapters III, IV, V, VI, VII.
  2.  Ibid., Chapters VII, VIII.

5. Arthur Landis, Spain! The Unfinished Revolution, Baldwin Park, Cal., 1972, p. 58. Cited as “Landis.”

6. Thomas, pp. 80-5

7. G. Dimitroff, United Front Against Fascism, New York, 1937, p. 100.

8. Thomas, p. 96.

  1.  Ibid., p. 96.

10. G. Jackson, The Spanish Republic and Civil War, 1931-1939, Princeton, 1965, p. 417.

11. Jellinek, p. 285

  1.  Ibid., p. 75.

13. Richard Robinson, The Origins of Franco’s Spain, Pittsburg, 1970, p. 291.

14. Jellinek, p. 279.

15. Stanley Payne, Falange, Stanford; 1961, p. 45.

16. Jackson, pp. 356-8.

17. D. Ibarurri, They Shall Not Pass, New York, 1966, p. 185.

18. Quoted in Landis, p. 136.

  1.  Ibid., p. 105.

20. Jackson, p. 333.

21. Landis, p. 205.

  1.  Ibid.

23. Ibid., p. 207.

  1.  Ibid., p. 208.
  2.  Ibid.
  3.  Ibid.

27. German Charge d’Affairs in Fascist Spain, quoted ibid., p. 239.

28. Stanley Payne, The Spanish Revolution, New York, 1970, p. 324. Cited as “Payne.”

29. Landis, p. 243.

30. Arthur Landis, The Abraham Lincoln Brigade, New York, 1967, passim. Cited as “Landis, ALB.”

31. Landis, p. 246.

  1.  Ibid., p. 247.

33. Thomas, p. 319.

34. Quoted in Landis, p. 269.

35. Burnett Bolloten, The Grand Camouflage, New York, 1961, p. 239.

36. Anna Louise Strong, Spain in Arms, 1937, New York, 1937, pp. 42-3.

37. P. Broue & E. Temime, The Revolution and the Civil War in Spain, Cambridge, Mass., 1970, p. 229.

38. Landis, p. 252.

39. Quoted in Landis ALB, p. 376.

40. Landis, p. 262.

41. Quoted in ibid., p. 259.

  1.  Ibid., p. 267.
  2.  Ibid., pp. 268-9.
  3.  Ibid., p. 370.
  4.  Ibid., p. 273.
  5.  Ibid., pp. 275-6.

47. The Spanish Revolution, (POUM English-language newspaper), 2/3/37.

  1.  Ibid., 3/31/37.

49. Broue and Temime, pp. 130-3; Thomas, 187-92.

50. Quoted in Landis, p. 324. The source is J. Petro, Anarchist Minister in the Republic Government.

51. Payne, p. 246.

52. G. Brennan, The Spanish Labyrinth, Cambridge, U.K., 1943, p. 321.

53. Abad de Santillan, After the Revolution, New York, 1937, p. 122.

54. Ibid, p. 134.

55. Quoted in H.L. Matthews, Two Wars and More to Come, New York, 1938, p. 294.

  1.  Ibid., Thomas, p. 443.

57. Matthews, p. 295.

58. Landis ALB, pp. 252-6.

  1.  Ibid.

60. Quoted in Ibarurri, p. 285.

61. Quoted in Landis, p. 323.

62. Steve Nelson, The Volunteers, New York, 1953, p. 175.

  1.  Ibid.

64. M. Anzar, Historia Militar de la Guerra de Espania (1930-1939), Madrid, 1958; quoted in Landis, p. 320.

65. The Spanish Revolution, 2/17/37.

66. G. Orwell, Homage to Catalonia, New York, 1952, pp. 32-5.

67. Landis, p. 331; the battle is described in Landis ALB, p. 517ff.

68. Orwell, p. 32.

69. Abad de Santillan, Porque Perdimos la Guerra, Buenos Aires, 1940, pp. 67-8; quoted in Landis, p. 321.

  1.  Ibid.

71. Thomas, pp. 586-603.

72. Landis, p. 337.

73. The Spanish Revolution, 11/4/36.

74. Payne, p. 294.

  1.  Ibid.
  2.  Ibid.

77. F. Borkenau, quogted in Landis, p. 320.

78. Julian Gorkin (POUM leader), Nota sobre las Jornadas de Mayo de 1937, unpublished MS in Hoover Institute; cited in Payne, p. 297.

  1.  Ibid.

80. Thomas, pp. 424-9.

  1.  Ibid., pp. 452-5.

82. “The Treason Trial of the POUM,” World News and Views, vol. 18 (1938), #50, pp. 1143-4.

83. Ibarurri, p. 286.

84. E. Rolfe, in The Daily Worker, 12 Oct., ’38.

85. Claude Bowers (U.S. Ambassador to the Spanish Republic), My Mission to Spain, New York, 1954, p. 356.

86. Quoted in Ibarurri, p. 282.

87. Thomas pp. 454ff, 568; relevant documents are reprinted in The Communist International, vol. 16 (1939), p. 165ff.

88. Abad de Santillan, Porque Perdimos la Guerra, as quoted in Landis, p. 312.

89. Barton Whaley, Guerrillas in the Spanish Civil War, Detroit, 1969, p. 40.

90. Thomas, p. 181.

91. Whaley, p. 42.

92. Quoted ibid., p. 39.

93. Whaley, passim; Payne 270-2.

94. D. Ibarruri, Speeches and Articles, 1936-1938, New York, 1938, p. 130.

95. Whaley, p. 42.

  1.  Ibid., p. 15
  2.  Ibid., p. 13.

98. Jackson, p. 429.

99. D. Ibarruri, “The Time Has Come to Create a Single Party of the Proletariat in Spain,” Communist International, vol. 14 (1937), #9, p. 651.

100. Payne, pp. 270-2.

101. Landis, p. 372; Landis ALB, p. 401ff.

102. Jackson, p. 454.

103. Landis, p. 405. Executions were still taking place in 1944 (ibid.)

104. In the Battle of Stalingrad, military and political turning point of World War II, the Red Army destroyed 113 Fascist divisions, two and one half times the German forces facing the Normandy invasion. (See, for example, G. Deborin, Secrets of the Second World War, Moscow, 1971, pp. 100, 163). While the Soviet workers were making enormous sacrifices to destroy the German armies, the capitalist “allies” were delaying a second front, fooling around with minor operations in North Africa and Sicily for public relations. When the second front was finally launched in Normandy, a year and a half after the Stalingrad victory, one main motive was simply fear of communist revolution in Europe (with Soviet army support), which would have denied the imperialists any slice of the European pie. Omar Bradley, commander of the U.S. troops in Europe, put this point with some frankness after the war:

To avoid chaos on the continent it would have been necessary for us to move such forces as we had, cross the Channel at one, move on into Germany, disarm its troops and seize control of the nation. (quoted in Deborin, P. 161)

In the final reckoning, the Red Army destroyed 507 German divisions, plus 100 of her allies’, as against 176 on all other fronts (Deborin, p. 269). U.S. and British aid to the Soviet Union provided only 1.9% of the guns, 8.3% of the planes and 10.5% of the tanks used by the Red Army, many of them of very inferior quality, plus some food and a quantity of trucks (Deborin, pp. 130-3, A. Werth, Russia at War, 1941-1945, New York, 1964, pp. 575-7). No significant aid reached the Soviet Union in time for Stalingrad.

Communist Party of Spain (PCE) Denounces the POUM

Pce2

Originally printed in the newspaper Frente Rojo on 6 February 1937

The fascist Trotskyist party should be dissolved and tried as fascist. The guttersnipe POUM has become desperate now that its infamy has been unmasked, and has unleashed a demogogic campaign against the solid wall of anti-fascist unity at the orders of its foreign masters.

We have continued to accuse them, conclusively showing their adventurism and showing that they are a faction organised behind our back. It’s not a matter of ideological disagreement nor even of physical revulsion towards a party of traitors, but of something deeper and more important. It’s a matter of the distance between those who are in the vanguard of our people and of the agents of the Gestapo. It’s a matter of a group of bandits which fascism has left amongst us.

Even now in the slander sheet called La Batalla, published in Barcelona, they defend themselves with the following inconsistent and comical arguments: referring to the trial against the Trotskyists they say it is an ‘iniquitous farce’ and in the following line accept that the ambassadors of France and the United States were present. That is to say, that a trial held in the presence of hundreds of foreign journalists and of the diplomatic corps, with legal guarantees for the accused such as no other country would provide, is described by the POUM as a farce. Naturally its Spanish accomplices are not going to recognise the justice exercised on a group of assassins. In Spain when we come to judge the Trotskyists – for we and our fraternal colleague – Mundo Obrero – demand that a people’s court try the fascist leaders of this organisation – their accomplices of some other place will say that our people’s justice has been an iniquitous farce.

In this same number of La Batalla … against the anti-fascists they write that they have received numerous protests from ‘comrades and sympathisers’ over an article by Goltsov in L’Humanité, protests that they don’t reproduce … for lack of space. Of course, they won’t print Franco’s congratulations.

Their cynicism elsewhere makes them state in answer to a report in the Official Monday Bulletin that ‘there was no picture of Trotsky in the meeting organised by the POUM in Barcelona.’ These contemptible people, conscious of the indignation which the picture of the leader of these international bandits arouses, don’t dare to exhibit it before their own members.

The secret aims of fascism are not well served by association with the criminal Trotsky. Who knows what new possibility they are seeking in order to serve the interests of the fascist agents amongst us.

Here is another proof that the POUM guttersnipes serve fascism and nothing but fascism. As all the world knows, the legitimate government has dissolved the so-called security patrols and has organised a single police force in the rear.

As all the world also knows, this force is formed from members of all the anti-fascist forces and the trade unions. Therefore, La Batalla of Wednesday shouts … ‘Long live the security patrols’ and writes elsewhere that the police force in the rear is the armed reserve of reaction. That is to say, they rabidly oppose the government’s measures and slander the people’s police force. If all who sabotage the government and insult its defenders should be considered fascists, then the provocateurs of the POUM are fascists.

That’s why it’s necessary to finish with this band of bandits and mete out the justice which these fascists deserve.

Source

Grover Furr: German Intelligence, Communist Anti-Trotskyism, and the Barcelona “May Days” of 1937

speciale11[1]

Originally posted by Grover Furr

German Intelligence, Communist Anti-Trotskyism, and the Barcelona “May Days” of 1937

I’m writing an article on the falsifications in Khrushchev’s infamous 1956 “Secret Speech.” A few weeks ago I ran across the following statement, in an article on the subject of this speech:

“…в угоду политической конъюнктуре деятельность Троцкого и его сторонников за границей в 1930-1940 годах сводят лишь к пропагандистской работе. Но это не так. Троцкисты действовали активно: организовали, используя поддержку лиц, связанных с абвером, мятеж против республиканского правительства в Барселоне в 1937 году. Из троцкистских кругов в спецслужбы Франции и Германии шли “наводящие” материалы о действиях компартий в поддержку Советского Союза. О связях с абвером лидеров троцкистского мятежа в Барселоне в 1937 году сообщил нам Шульце-Бойзен…Впоследствии, после ареста, гестапо обвинило его в передаче нам данной информации, и этот факт фигурировал в смертном приговоре гитлеровского суда по его делу.” (| Судоплатов, П. “Разведка и Кремль.” М., 1996, с. 88; | Haase, N. Das Reichskriegsgericht und der Widerstand gegen nationalsozialistische Herrschaft. Berlin, 1993, S. 105) [1]

English translation from Gen. Pavel Sudoplatov, _The Intelligence Service and the Kremlin, Moscow 1996, p. 58: 

“In the interests of the political situation the activities of Trotsky and his supporters abroad in the 1930s are said to have been propaganda only. But this is not so. The Trotskyists were also involved in actions. Making us of the support of persons with ties to German military intelligence [the ‘Abwehr’] they organized a revolt against the Republican government in Barcelona in 1937. From Trotskyist circles in the French and German special intelligence services came “indicative” information concerning the actions of the Communist Parties in supporting the Soviet Union. Concerning the connections of the leaders of the Trotskyist revolt in Barcelona in 1937 we were informed by Schuze-Boysen… Afterward, after his arrest, the Gestapo accused him of transmitting this information to us, and this fact figured in his death sentence by the Hitlerite court in his case.” 

This passage is indeed in Sudoplatov’s book. But the footnote to the Haase volume is not. I assume it was added either by Lifshits, author of the Russian-language article, or by Trosten, author of the German version. 

So I obtained the Haase volume. The text on pp. 105 ff. is the actual text of the German Reichskriegsgericht (Military Court of the Reich) against Harro Schulze-Boysen, charged with espionage for the Soviet Union (Haase, Norbert. Das Reichskriegsgericht und der Widerstand gegen die nationalsozialistische Herrschaft. Berlin: Druckerei der Justizvollzugsanstalt Tegel, 1993).The relevant paragraph, also on p. 105, reads thus:

Anfang 1938, während des Spanienkrieges, erfuhr der Angeklagte dienstlich, daß unter Mitwirkung des deutschen Geheimdienstes im Gebiet von Barcelona ein Aufstand gegen die dortige rote Regierung vorbereitet werde. Diese Nachricht wurde von ihm gemeinsam mit der von Pöllnitz der sowjetrussischen Botschaft in Paris zugeleitet.

English translation: 

“At the beginning of 1938, during the Spanish Civil War, the accused learned in his official capacity that a rebellion against the local red government in the territory of Barcelona was being prepared with the co-operation of the German Secret Service. This information, together with that of Pöllnitz, was transmitted by him to the Soviet Russian embassy in Paris.”

“Pöllnitz” was Gisella von Pöllnitz, a recent recruit to the “Red Orchestra” (Rote Kapelle) anti-Nazi Soviet spy ring who worked for United Press and who “shoved the report through the mailbox of the Soviet embassy” (Brysac, Resisting Hitler: Mildred Harnack and the Red Orchestra. Oxford University Press, 2000, p. 237). 

* * * * *

By itself Sudoplatov’s statement only proves that Soviet intelligence sincerely believed that Trotskyists were involved with “persons with ties to German military intelligence” in preparing this revolt. By the time he wrote his memoirs, in the 1990s, Sudoplatov was very anti-Soviet, and showed much remorse for many of the things he had done in the Soviet secret service. The fact that he insisted that the Trotskyists were involved with the Nazis in the “May Days” revolt of 1937 in Barcelona surely means that he sincerely believed it was true.

The information from the German Military Court published by Haase provides independent confirmation of Sudoplatov’s statement and of Soviet contentions at the time. It fully confirms Communist suspicions that German intelligence was involved in planning the Barcelona revolt of May 1937. Communist hostility towards Trotskyists and Trotskyism becomes understandable in the light of this information. 

There’s good evidence that the real panic over clandestine Trotskyists did not take place, even in the USSR, until after the May Days in Barcelona, 1937. Stalin’s speeches (two of them) to the February – March 1937 Central Committee Plenum, minimized the dangers of Trotskyists; declared them marginalized; and encouraged CC members not to discriminate against people who used to be Trotskyists but no longer were. [2]

By June or July this had all changed. At the enlarged session of the Military Soviet, held on June 1-4 to discuss the just-uncovered and very serious Tukhachevsky conspiracy, Stalin gave a speech in which he states that Tukhachevsky and the rest “tried to make out of the USSR another Spain.” [3] The meant create a civil war, of course. But specifically it seems to have meant: Do what the Trotskyists and others had done in the May Days in Barcelona — stab the USSR in the back in the course of a war with the fascists.

The Soviet NKVD had very credible evidence that Trotskyists were collaborating with the German military and Japanese. Soviet leaders certainly believed it. Pavel Sudoplatov believed it, in his memoirs, and he became very, very “anti-Stalin” and anti-Soviet in his old age.

The real panicked hunt for hidden oppositionists, Rights, Trotskyists, and others, began after that Plenum, in the atmosphere of the Tukhachevsky conspiracy. But the Tukhachevsky conspiracy was preceded by the Barcelona “May Days” revolt. 

The German Military Court evidence cited above shows that the German Secret Service was involved in the planning of the “May Days” revolt. Later in May 1937 Marshal Mikhail Tukhachevsky wrote out by hand a lengthy statement in which he admitted to conspiring against the Soviet Union with the German General Staff. [4] Tukhachevsky stated that the commanders discussed their planned revolt with Trotsky. These events provide the most likely explanation for the beginning of the fervent persecution by Communists of Trotskyists in Spain. [5]

Notes

[1] S Lifshits, “Preslovutyi Doklak Khrushcheva, ili CACATUM NON EST PICTUM”. In Moskva Sadovoe Kol’tso, http://m-s-k.newmail.ru , downloaded July 5 2004. The same article is published as a pamphlet in German: Gersch Troston, Chruschtschows berüchtigte Rede, oder CACATUM NON EST PICTUM (hingeschissen ist nicht gemalt). «Marxistisch-leninistische Schriftenreihe für Geschichte, Politik, Ökonomie und Philosophie» (ISSN 1861-2954), Heft 45. Berlin: Ernst-Thaelmann-Verlag, n.d. I have verified all the Russian and English quotations in this article with the originals.

[2] J.V. Stalin, Mastering Bolshevism. NY: Workers Library Publishers, 1937, pp. 26-7; 43-4. Cited from http://ptb.lashout.net/marx2mao/Stalin/MB37.html

[3] J.V. Stalin, “Speech by J.V. Stalin at the Ministry of Defense,” Secret Documents. Toronto, CA: Northstar Compass, n.d. [1996], p. 115: “These people tried to make out of the USSR another Spain…” Original in Lubianka. Stalin i Glavnoe Upravlenie Gosbezopasnosti NKVD 1937-1938. Eds. V.N. Khaustov et al. Moscow: “Materik”, 2004, p. 206; Stalin, Sochineniia [Collected Works], vol. 14, at http://grachev62.narod.ru/stalin/t14/t14_48.htm 

[4] Partial English translation in Steven J. Main, “The Arrest and ‘Testimony’ of Marshal of the Soviet Union M.N. Tukhachevsky (May – June 1937),” Journal of Slavic Military Studies 10, No. 1 (1997), 151-195. Trotsky and his followers are mentioned throughout Tukhachevsky’s statement.

[5] It’s important to emphasize that there is no evidence that any Trotskyists were killed by Soviet or other communists in Spain, with the exception of Andres Nin, POUM leader and former secretary of Trotsky. See Grover Furr, “Fraudulent Anti-Communist Scholarship From A “Respectable” Conservative Source: Prof. Paul Johnson,” at http://msuweb.montclair.edu/~furrg/pol/pauljohnsonfraud.html